Guo Z, Wang J, Li L, Liu R, Fang J, Tie B. Value of miR-1271 and glypican-3 in evaluating the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(16): 3493-3502 [PMID: 32913856 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i16.3493]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Bin Tie, MAMS, Attending Doctor, Department of Interventional Medicine, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, No. 1 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu Province, China. tie12bin@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Aug 26, 2020; 8(16): 3493-3502 Published online Aug 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i16.3493
Table 1 Efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in different types of hepatocellular carcinoma, n (%)
Group
n
CR (%)
PR (%)
SD (%)
PD (%)
Massive type
71
0
17 (23.94)
41 (57.75)
13 (18.31)
Nodular type
80
0
13 (16.25)
34 (42.50)
33 (41.25)
Diffuse type
11
0
0
7 (63.64)
4 (36.36)
Table 2 Comparison of baseline data between hepatocellular carcinoma group and healthy group
Group
Number of cases
Age
BMI
Cancer group
162
51.31 ± 4.21
26.04 ± 2.54
Health group
162
52.30 ± 5.28
25.73 ± 2.55
t
1.87
0.31
P value
0.06
0.27
Table 3 Remission and recurrence of hepatic cancer patients undergoing hepatic artery embolization chemotherapy (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization)
Group
Remission
Relapse
χ2
P value
Classification of HCC
9.44
< 0.05
Massive type, n = 71
58
13
Nodular type, n = 80
47
33
Diffuse type, n = 11
7
4
Preoperative staging
30.59
< 0.05
II stage, n = 97
83
14
III stage, n = 65
29
36
Child-Pugh
60.08
< 0.05
Child A, n = 42
34
8
Child B, n = 88
74
14
Child C, n = 32
4
28
AFP level
0.87
> 0.05
> 400 ng/mL, n = 124
86
38
20-400 ng/mL, n = 10
8
2
< 20 ng/mL, n = 28
18
10
Table 4 Comparison of serum glypican-3 and miR-1271 levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Group
Number of cases
Glypican-3
t
P value
miR-1271
t
P value
Group 1
7.41
< 0.05
18.06
< 0.05
Health group
162
0.74 ± 0.29
5.48 ± 1.79
Cancer group
162
8.87 ± 3.73
1.25 ± 0.68
Group 2
18.06
< 0.05
18.06
< 0.05
Before treatment
162
8.87 ± 3.73
1.25 ± 0.68
After treatment
162
2.46 ± 1.69
4.64 ± 2.13
Group 3
7.6
< 0.05
4.17
< 0.05
Remission group
112
6.79 ± 5.32
4.96 ± 2.28
Recurrent group
50
8.74 ± 2.40
3.41 ± 1.96
Table 5 Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of miR-1271 and glypican-3 alone and jointly for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (%)
Items
Sensitivity
Specificity
Accuracy
RR (95%CI)
GPC3
68.9
86.0
75.3
0.926 (0.561-1.471)
miR-1271
76.0
72.8
76.5
0.925 (0.374-1.482)
GPC3 + miR-1271
94.7
65.0
80.3
0.931 (0.537-1.312)
Citation: Guo Z, Wang J, Li L, Liu R, Fang J, Tie B. Value of miR-1271 and glypican-3 in evaluating the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(16): 3493-3502