Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Comparison between patient characteristics, aetiology and outcomes in patients with and without cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed in a regional centre
  1. Carly Lamb1,
  2. Jennifer Tham1,
  3. Tee Lin Goh2,
  4. Stephen Barclay3,
  5. Matthew Priest1,
  6. Ewan H Forrest3,
  7. Andrew Fraser1,
  8. David Kay4,
  9. Ram Kasthuri4,
  10. Jeff Evans5,
  11. Adrian J Stanley3
  1. 1 Gastroenterology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
  2. 2 Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  3. 3 Gastroenterology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
  4. 4 Radiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
  5. 5 Medical Oncology, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Carly Lamb; carly.lamb{at}nhs.scot

Abstract

Introduction Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in incidence across the UK. Most patients have underlying cirrhosis, but a significant minority do not. Progression and outcomes of HCC in patients without cirrhosis remains unclear.

This study aimed to establish the proportion and characteristics of patients with HCC occurring in those with and without cirrhosis in the West of Scotland.

Methods Data were collected from our prospectively collected database on patient demographics, liver disease aetiology, stage at presentation and outcomes for patients with a diagnosis of HCC confirmed at the Regional West of Scotland multidisciplinary team from 2009 to 2015.

Results 638 patients were included. 138 (21.6%) did not have cirrhosis and were older at diagnosis than those with cirrhosis (72 years vs 68 years, p=0.001). A higher proportion of those without cirrhosis presented with more advanced HCC (Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) score B or above; p=0.003).

Patients with cirrhosis had median survival of 8 months, compared with those without cirrhosis (11.5 months) but survival was similar in both groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.119). There was no difference in survival between these groups when adjusted for cancer stage.

Survival was influenced by BCLC score in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic groups, as was survival by Child-Pugh score in patients with cirrhosis. Among the patients who underwent transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), those with cirrhosis had worse survival (p=0.044).

Conclusion 21.6% of patients with a new diagnosis of HCC in our region did not have underlying cirrhosis. Patients with non-cirrhotic HCC were diagnosed at an older age, with more advanced stage of HCC. There was no difference in overall survival between patients with HCC with and without cirrhosis, however, survival after TACE was higher in those without cirrhosis.

  • hepatocellular carcinoma
  • liver cirrhosis

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. De-identified participant data available from CL (ORCID 0000-0003-0136-7835).

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. De-identified participant data available from CL (ORCID 0000-0003-0136-7835).

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @j90thm

  • Contributors JT and TLG collected the data. CL, JT, TLG and AJS analysed the data and drafted the paper. SB, MP, EHF, AF and JE critically revised it. All gave final approval for it to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. AJS acted as guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.