Assessing hepatocellular carcinoma in Nigeria: A multicenter retrospective cohort review of prevalence, risk factors, and treatment outcomes

doi:10.4251/wjgo.v18.i5.117654

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 18, Issue 5

This Article

(0) (0) (0)

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (18)

All Articles published online

Item

Count

PDF

HTML

Figures (1-4)

Tables (1-10)

Sum=41

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

Download

Sum=34

May 15, 2026 (publication date) through May 14, 2026

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology

ISSN

1948-5204

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Cohort Study

Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.

World J Gastrointest Oncol. May 15, 2026; 18(5): 117654
Published online May 15, 2026. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v18.i5.117654

Table 1 Demography of hepatocellular cancer cases

Demographic variables		Frequency	%
Gender	Male	246	77.6
Gender	Female	71	22.4
Age (years)	< 18	1	0.3
	18-29	13	4.1
	30-39	56	17.7
	40-49	104	32.8
	50-59	66	20.8
	≥ 60	75	23.7
Regional location	South-South	31	9.72
	South-East	25	7.84
	South-West	67	21.00
	North-West	166	52.04
	North-East	4	1.26
	Missing	2	0.63

Full Size Table

Table 2 Examination findings of the hepatocellular carcinoma cases

Examination findings		Frequency	%
On examination	Stigmata of cirrhosis	125	39.4
On examination	Hard craggy liver	198	62.5
Ascites	Moderate	152	47.9
Ascites	Marked	51	16.1
Encephalopathy¹	No	165	52.1
	Grade 1	13	4.1
	Grade 2	46	14.5
	Grade 3	34	10.7
	Grade 4	9	2.8
Performance status	0	26	8.2
	1	42	13.2
	2	79	24.9
	3	64	20.2
	4	37	11.7

¹Encephalopathy grades by West Haven classification.

Full Size Table

Table 3 Investigations, Child-Pugh scores and clinical staging of hepatocellular carcinoma cases

Investigations/stage		Frequency	%
Ultrasound scan	Liver mass with ascites	163	51.4
Ultrasound scan	Liver mass without ascites	107	33.8
CT scan	Characteristic liver mass	132	41.6
Serum AFP (ng/mL)	< 200	70	22.1
	200-400	30	9.5
	> 400	68	21.5
Serum urea/creatinine	Normal	183	57.7
Serum urea/creatinine	Deranged	78	24.8
INR	< 1.7	122	38.5
INR	1.7-2.3	57	18
Child-Pugh scores	A	53	16.7
	B	76	24.0
	C	94	29.7
BCLC stage	0	2	0.6
	A	16	5.0
	B	58	18.3
	C	88	27.8
	D	72	22.7

CT: Computed tomography; AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; INR: International normalized ratio; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer.

Full Size Table

Table 4 Treatments given to the hepatocellular carcinoma cases

Treatments given		Frequency	%
Surgery	Transplant	2	0.6
Surgery	Resection	9	2.8
Locoregional therapy	TACE	2	0.6
Systemic therapy	Sorafenib	122	38.5
Systemic therapy	Others¹	12	3.8
Other therapy	Anti-viral	17	5.4
Palliative therapy	Palliation²	307	96.9

¹Atezolizumab/bevacizumab, gemcitabine/carboplatin, and regorafenib.

²Analgesics, lactulose, diuretics, proton pump inhibitors, transfusion, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and enema.

TACE: Trans arterial chemoembolization.

Full Size Table

Table 5 Relationships of demographic variable and disease outcome, n (%)

Variable	Category	Alive	Dead	χ²	P value
Regional location	North-central	4 (36.4)	7 (63.6)	11.912	0.036^a
	North-East	3 (75.0)	1 (25.0)
	North-West	21 (25.3)	62 (74.7)
	South-East	4 (22.2)	14 (77.8)
	South-South	2 (22.2)	7 (77.8)
	South-West	5 (10.4)	43 (89.6)
Age (year)	< 30	3 (50.0)	3 (50.0)	14.331	0.014^a
	30-39	8 (29.6)	19 (70.4)
	40-49	17 (27.0)	46 (73.0)
	50-59	10 (27.8)	26 (72.2)
	≥ 60	1 (2.3)	40 (97.7)
Gender	Female	9 (28.1)	23 (71.9)	0.701	0.403
Gender	Male	30 (21.3)	111 (78.7)

^aStatistically significant.

Full Size Table

Table 6 Relationships between risk factors and clinical outcome, n (%)

Variable	Category	Alive	Dead	χ²	P value
Chronic hepatitis B virus infection	No	21 (27.3)	56 (72.7)	1.777	0.182
Chronic hepatitis B virus infection	Yes	18 (18.8)	78 (81.3)
Chronic hepatitis C virus infection	No	34 (20.9)	129 (79.1)	4.582	0.032^a
Chronic hepatitis C virus infection	Yes	5 (50.0)	5 (50.0)
MASLD	No	36 (22.1)	127 (77.9)	0.338	0.561
MASLD	Yes	3 (30.0)	7 (70.0)
Alcohol consumption	No	33 (24.1)	104 (75.9)	0.899	0.343
Alcohol consumption	Yes	6 (16.7)	30 (83.3)
Cigarette smoking	No	39 (23.4)	128 (76.6)	1.809	0.179
Cigarette smoking	Yes	0 (0.0)	6 (100.0)

^aStatistically significant.

MASLD: Metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease.

Full Size Table

Table 7 Relationships between clinical features and disease outcome, n (%)

Variable	Category	Alive	Dead	χ²	P value
Abdominal swelling	No	11 (64.7)	6 (35.3)	19.193	< 0.001^a
	Yes	28 (17.9)	128 (82.1)
Right hypochondrial mass	No	12 (36.4)	21 (63.6)	4.461	0.035^a
	Yes	27 (19.3)	113 (80.7)
Right hypochondrial pain	No	5 (20.0)	20 (80.0)	0.108	0.742
	Yes	34 (23.0)	114 (77.0)
Jaundice	No	27 (29.0)	66 (71.0)	4.850	0.028^a
	Yes	12 (15.0)	68 (85.0)
GI bleeding	No	32 (24.2)	100 (75.8)	0.921	0.337
	Yes	7 (17.1)	34 (82.9)
Encephalopathy	No	35 (36.1)	62 (63.9)	23.180	< 0.001^a
	Yes	4 (5.3)	72 (94.7)
Weight loss (symptom)	No	29 (22.5)	100 (77.5)	0.001	0.973
	Yes	10 (22.7)	34 (77.3)
Stigmata of cirrhosis	No	25 (27.8)	65 (72.2)	2.944	0.086
	Yes	14 (16.9)	69 (83.1)
Hard craggy liver	No	20 (39.2)	31 (60.8)	11.513	0.001^a
	Yes	19 (15.6)	103 (84.4)
Presence of ascites	None	23 (48.9)	24 (51.1)	26.216	< 0.001^a
	Moderate	13 (14.3)	78 (85.7)
	Marked	3 (8.6)	32 (91.4)

^aStatistically significant.

GI: Gastrointestinal.

Full Size Table

Table 8 Relationships between some clinical scores/stage and overall outcome, n (%)

Variable	Category	Alive	Dead	χ²	P value
Encephalopathy	None	33 (35.1)	61 (64.9)	26.060	< 0.001^a
	Grade 1	3 (50.0)	3 (50.0)
	Grade 2	3 (8.6)	32 (91.4)
	Grade 3	0 (0.0)	31 (100.0)
	Grade 4	0 (0.0)	7 (100.0)
Performance status	0	10 (90.9)	1 (9.1)	45.029	< 0.001^a
	1	8 (40.0)	12 (60.0)
	2	15 (24.2)	47 (75.8)
	3	6 (12.2)	43 (87.8)
	4	0 (0.0)	31 (100.0)
BCLC stage	A	9 (90.0)	1 (10.0)	65.495	< 0.001^a
	B	16 (66.7)	8 (33.3)
	C	6 (12.8)	41 (87.2)
	D	8 (8.7)	84 (91.3)
Abdominal ultrasound	With ascites	14 (11.8)	105 (88.2)	25.366	< 0.001^a
Abdominal ultrasound	Without ascites	25 (46.3)	29 (53.7)
Serum AFP (ng/mL)	< 200	5 (17.2)	24 (82.8)	1.363	0.714
	200-400	4 (25.0)	12 (75.0)
	> 400	9 (19.1)	38 (80.9)
Serum urea/creatinine	Normal	32 (29.4)	77 (70.6)	7.836	0.005^a
Serum urea/creatinine	Deranged	7 (10.9)	57 (89.1)
INR	< 1.7	21 (30.0)	49 (70.0)	7.651	0.022^a
INR	1.7-2.3	2 (5.9)	32 (94.1)
Child-Pugh score	A	18 (58.1)	13 (41.9)	27.780	< 0.001^a
	B	7 (18.9)	30 (81.1)
	C	14 (13.3)	91 (86.7)

^aStatistically significant.

AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; INR: International normalized ratio; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer.

Full Size Table

Table 9 Survival outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma cases vs Child-Pugh scores, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and performance status

Indicator	Category	Hazard ratio	95% confidence interval	Total patients	Deaths (day)	Median survival (months)	Log-rank P value
Child-Pugh score	A (reference)	1	Reference	100	10	Not reached	< 0.0001
	B	5.93	2.00-17.63	50	30	18
	C	9	3.63-22.33	20	18	6
Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage	A (reference)	1	Reference	50	2	Not reached	< 0.0001
	B	4.5	0.48-42.00	40	15	Not reached
	C	61.5	6.57-575.73	30	25	12
	D	94.5	10.58-844.05	10	10	6
Performance status	0 (reference)	1	Reference	60	2	Not reached	< 0.0001
	1	15	1.59-141.17	40	15	Not reached
	2	31.33	3.70-265.32	30	20	18
	3	71.67	7.74-663.87	20	18	6
	4	620	19.31-19901.77	10	10	6

Full Size Table

Table 10 Logistics regression for treatment given against clinical outcome

Predictor	β coefficient	Odds ratio(Exp β)	P value	Interpretation
Intercept	1.95	-	0.006^a	Baseline log-odds of disease progression when all predictors are at reference level
Locoregional therapy (yes)	-1.80	0.17	0.040^a	Locoregional treatment significantly reduced the odds of disease progression by 83%
Systemic therapy (yes)	-1.25	0.29	0.048^a	Patients who received systemic therapy were 71% less likely to progress
Palliative treatment (yes)	0.65	1.91	0.090	Palliative care alone showed a non-significant trend toward higher odds of progression
BCLC stage (per stage increase)	1.10	3.01	< 0.001^a	Each higher BCLC stage tripled the odds of disease progression
Performance status (per unit increase)	0.75	2.12	0.003^a	Worse performance status doubled the risk of progression
Child-Pugh score (per class increase)	0.58	1.78	0.018^a	Worsening liver function significantly increased progression risk

^aStatistically significant.

BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer.

Full Size Table

Citation: Musa Y, Dankiri NA, Saleh HT, Onyia CP, Abdulkareem LO, Okonkwo KC, Abdulkareem FB, Shu'aibu RB, Aminu AS, Ewa AM, Abdullahi HZ, Njideka AW, Sunusi HI, Ijoma UN, Sunday NV, Chukwudike ES, Okeke UF, Asogwa PU, Mukoro GD, Abdullahi MK, Odeghe EA, Nwoko C, Takwashe IM, Oguntoye OO, Owoseni OO, Jimoh AO, Oyeleke GK. Assessing hepatocellular carcinoma in Nigeria: A multicenter retrospective cohort review of prevalence, risk factors, and treatment outcomes. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(5): 117654
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v18/i5/117654.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v18.i5.117654

Musa Y, Dankiri NA, Saleh HT, Onyia CP, Abdulkareem LO, Okonkwo KC, Abdulkareem FB, Shu'aibu RB, Aminu AS, Ewa AM, Abdullahi HZ, Njideka AW, Sunusi HI, Ijoma UN, Sunday NV, Chukwudike ES, Okeke UF, Asogwa PU, Mukoro GD, Abdullahi MK, Odeghe EA, Nwoko C, Takwashe IM, Oguntoye OO, Owoseni OO, Jimoh AO, Oyeleke GK. Assessing hepatocellular carcinoma in Nigeria: A multicenter retrospective cohort review of prevalence, risk factors, and treatment outcomes. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(5): 117654 [DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v18.i5.117654]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.