Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
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 (%)
GroupnCR (%)PR (%)SD (%)PD (%)
Massive type71017 (23.94)41 (57.75)13 (18.31)
Nodular type80013 (16.25)34 (42.50)33 (41.25)
Diffuse type11007 (63.64)4 (36.36)
Table 2 Comparison of baseline data between hepatocellular carcinoma group and healthy group
GroupNumber of casesAgeBMI
Cancer group16251.31 ± 4.2126.04 ± 2.54
Health group16252.30 ± 5.2825.73 ± 2.55
t1.870.31
P value0.060.27
Table 3 Remission and recurrence of hepatic cancer patients undergoing hepatic artery embolization chemotherapy (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization)
GroupRemissionRelapseχ2P value
Classification of HCC9.44< 0.05
Massive type, n = 715813
Nodular type, n = 804733
Diffuse type, n = 1174
Preoperative staging30.59< 0.05
II stage, n = 978314
III stage, n = 652936
Child-Pugh60.08< 0.05
Child A, n = 42348
Child B, n = 887414
Child C, n = 32428
AFP level0.87> 0.05
> 400 ng/mL, n = 1248638
20-400 ng/mL, n = 1082
< 20 ng/mL, n = 281810
Table 4 Comparison of serum glypican-3 and miR-1271 levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
GroupNumber of casesGlypican-3tP valuemiR-1271tP value
Group 17.41< 0.0518.06< 0.05
Health group1620.74 ± 0.295.48 ± 1.79
Cancer group1628.87 ± 3.731.25 ± 0.68
Group 218.06< 0.0518.06< 0.05
Before treatment1628.87 ± 3.731.25 ± 0.68
After treatment1622.46 ± 1.694.64 ± 2.13
Group 37.6< 0.054.17< 0.05
Remission group1126.79 ± 5.324.96 ± 2.28
Recurrent group508.74 ± 2.403.41 ± 1.96
Table 5 Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of miR-1271 and glypican-3 alone and jointly for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (%)
ItemsSensitivitySpecificityAccuracyRR (95%CI)
GPC368.986.075.30.926 (0.561-1.471)
miR-127176.072.876.50.925 (0.374-1.482)
GPC3 + miR-127194.765.080.30.931 (0.537-1.312)