> Details

Mikami, Shintaro; Tateishi, Ryosuke; Hagiwara, Shu; Sato, Masaya; Minami, Tatsuya; Uchino, Koji; Enooku, Kenichiro; Sato, Takahisa; Nakagawa, Hayato; Masuzaki, Ryota; Asaoka, Yoshinari; Kondo, Yuji; Shiina, Shuichiro; Ikeda, Hitoshi; Omata, Masao; Yoshida, Haruhiko; Koike, Kazuhiko

Tumor markers are more useful in patients undergoing surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma with unreliable results by ultrasonography

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Tumor markers are more useful in patients undergoing surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma with unreliable results by ultrasonography
  • Contributor: Mikami, Shintaro; Tateishi, Ryosuke; Hagiwara, Shu; Sato, Masaya; Minami, Tatsuya; Uchino, Koji; Enooku, Kenichiro; Sato, Takahisa; Nakagawa, Hayato; Masuzaki, Ryota; Asaoka, Yoshinari; Kondo, Yuji; Shiina, Shuichiro; Ikeda, Hitoshi; Omata, Masao; Yoshida, Haruhiko; Koike, Kazuhiko
  • Published: Wiley, 2015
  • Published in: Hepatology Research, 45 (2015) 4, Seite 415-422
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1111/hepr.12365
  • ISSN: 1386-6346; 1872-034X
  • Keywords: Infectious Diseases ; Hepatology
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: AimThe objectives of this study was to evaluate the utility of tumor markers in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance based on the reliability of ultrasonography.MethodsWe analyzed 313 patients with HCC detected through a surveillance program using ultrasonography combined with three tumor markers from February 2000 to December 2010. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the triggering event: the US group (n = 281) in which a tumor was first detected using ultrasonography and the TM group (n = 32) in which elevated tumor markers led to the diagnosis of a tumor that was undetected using ultrasonography. The reliability of ultrasonography was scored on a 4‐point scale based on three items (coarseness of liver parenchyma, patient obesity and liver atrophy). Additionally, patient survival was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method and log–rank test.ResultsThe median tumor size was 20 mm (interquartile range, 15–24). The reliability of ultrasonography was evaluated as good in 208 (66.5%), satisfactory in 80 (8.0%), poor in 21 (6.7%) and unsatisfactory in four (1.2%) patients. The proportion of patients in the TM group increased significantly according to the score, from 7.2% to 25.0% (P = 0.01). The survival rates of patients at 3 and 5 years were 83.7% and 57.2% in the US group, and 79.3% and 59.4% in the TM group, respectively (P = 0.98).ConclusionTumor markers may play a diagnostic role in patients with unreliable ultrasonography results. The survival of patients diagnosed by elevated tumor markers was not significantly different from those diagnosed by ultrasonography.