Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Liver Cancer logoLink to Liver Cancer
. 2015 Apr 8;4(2):126–136. doi: 10.1159/000367735

Tumor Markers for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Simple and Significant Predictors of Outcome in Patients with HCC

Hidenori Toyoda a,*, Takashi Kumada a, Toshifumi Tada a, Yasuhiro Sone b, Yuji Kaneoka c, Atsuyuki Maeda c
PMCID: PMC4439793  PMID: 26020034

Abstract

Background

The effectiveness of tumor markers in evaluating outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains to be clarified.

Summary

The usefulness of the HCC tumor markers, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP-L3), and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) was reviewed. Elevations in these tumor markers at the time of HCC diagnosis correlate with disease progression as assessed by both imaging studies and pathologic examinations. The combination of these three tumor markers results in good predictive ability for patient survival after diagnosis. In addition, combination at the time of HCC diagnosis of these three tumor markers (as a measure of tumor progression) and serum albumin and bilirubin levels (as indicators of remnant liver function) can be used for HCC staging and further predicts prognosis in patients with HCC.

Key Message

The prognosis of patients with HCC can be well discriminated based solely on serum markers. Staging of HCC with serum markers is objective; if stored serum samples are available, HCC stages can be standardized across different countries and time periods.

Key Words: Alpha-fetoprotein, Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin, Hepatocellular carcinoma, Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of alpha-fetoprotein, Prognosis

Introduction

Measuring levels of tumor biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an important tool for disease management. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), Lens culinaris agglutinin A-reactive fraction of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP-L3), and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) have been established as HCC-specific tumor markers [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Although tumor marker levels are not included in the diagnostic criteria for HCC or in the screening recommendations in the guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases or the European Association for the Study of the Liver [15,16], they provide valuable supportive information for diagnosing HCC. Furthermore, a recent study found that the combination of these three tumor markers was useful for diagnosing HCC; this combination had very high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing HCC without the use of imaging studies [17].

The levels of AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP usually increase as HCC progresses, i.e., with increases in the size and number of HCC lesions and progression to portal vein invasion [18,19,20,21,22]. In addition, some studies have reported that an increase in tumor marker levels suggests a high degree of HCC malignancy regardless of morphological progression [22,23]. Consequently, an increase in the levels of these tumor markers portends an unfavorable prognosis after initial diagnosis.

In this review, we evaluated three tumor markers of HCC, namely AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP, as indicators of tumor progression and predictors of patient outcome. In addition, we review attempts to predict prognosis solely based on serum markers.

Limitations in Estimating HCC Progression by Imaging Studies and Liver Function with the Child-Pugh Classification

The progression of HCC is usually evaluated morphologically, based on the size and number of tumors and the presence of portal vein invasion [24,25,26]. Such evaluations are mainly based on imaging studies prior to treatment; however, estimating tumor progression using imaging studies has several shortcomings. For example, the detectability of liver tumors by ultrasonography (US), a routine, basic imaging tool for HCC surveillance, depends on the skill of the sonographer. In addition, the detectability of liver tumors strongly depends on the resolution of the imaging modality and the quality of the equipment used for US, computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Recent advances in imaging equipment such as those used in US, multidetector-row CT [27,28], and MRI have improved the detection of hepatic nodules, including small, early-stage HCC tumors. Moreover, developments in contrast media have further enhanced the ability to detect and characterize hepatic nodules including HCC [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Thus, the number of HCCs detected will increase with advances in imaging technology, which will have the effect of upstaging HCC. Furthermore, advances in imaging techniques also improve the imaging evaluation of pathologic features of HCC including vascular invasion and macroscopic type [37,38,39]. This can also result in upstaging of HCC progression.

Discrepancies between findings on imaging and pathologic results are often found in patients who undergo hepatic resection. According to an annual survey of HCC by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan, the prevalence of HCC with portal vain invasion was 13.1% based on imaging studies and 26.0% based on pathologic analysis [40]. Using imaging studies, it is often difficult to detect microvascular invasion of HCC or minute satellite nodules; however, these entities are often found in pathologic analysis after resection, thereby indicating discrepancies in the staging of HCC progression.

Liver function in patients with HCC is usually estimated using the Child-Pugh score [41]. This score is based on patient serum albumin and bilirubin levels, prothrombin time, and the presence and controllability of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy. However, the presence and controllability of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy are often subjective. The presence of ascites varies from symptomatic ascites and ascites detected by physicians on physical examination to mild ascites only detectable by US. In addition, the controllability of ascites depends on the dose and the type of medications used. Moreover, the severity of hepatic encephalopathy may range from coma to subclinical encephalopathy.

Association between Tumor Marker Levels and HCC Progression

Several studies have reported an association between elevated tumor markers, especially AFP-L3 and DCP, and HCC progression [19,20,42]. Elevated AFP-L3 has been associated with microsatellite lesions and hypervascularity of HCC tumor [18,19]. In contrast, elevated DCP has been associated with a higher prevalence of portal vein invasion [20]. Our previous study of HCC characteristics according to elevations in various tumor markers yielded similar results [43]. Among 685 patients in whom AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP were measured at diagnosis, we found one of three tumor markers elevated in 220 patients, whereas no tumor markers were elevated in 159 patients (fig. 1). When these patients were compared (table 1), patients with elevated AFP-L3 alone had a larger number of tumors, and patients with elevated DCP alone had a higher prevalence of portal vein thrombosis. In contrast, no differences were observed in HCC progression between patients with elevated AFP alone and those with no elevated tumor markers. When elevations of these three tumor markers were considered together (table 2), there were increases in the size of the largest tumor, the number of tumors, and the prevalence of portal vein thrombosis as the number of elevated tumor markers increased. Consequently, there was a correlation between the number of elevated tumor markers and the TNM tumor stage (as defined by the Liver Cancer Study of Japan [26], table 3). Thus, elevations of these tumor markers are associated with morphological progression of HCC as evaluated by imaging studies.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Patterns of tumor marker elevation in 685 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma [43]. The tumor marker cut-off points were AFP 20 ng/dL, AFP-L3 10%, and DCP 40 mAU/mL.

Table 1.

Morphological tumor progression based on imaging findings in patients with no elevations in tumor markers and those with elevation of only one tumor marker (n=379) [43]

Elevated tumor marker None (n=159) AFP alone (n=96) AFP-L3 alone (n=14) DCP alone (n=110)
Size of largest tumor (cm)a 2.24 ± 1.41 2.17 ± 1.20 3.99 ± 3.90 3.94 ± 3.00
Number of tumorsb 1.42 ± 0.97 1.52 ± 0.83 2.21 ± 1.48 1.54 ± 1.05
Portal vein thrombosisc 3 (1.9%) 0 1 (7.1%) 13 (11.8%)
Open in a new tab

Cut-off points: AFP, 20 ng/mL; AFP-L3, 10%; DCP, 40 mAU/mL.

a

None vs. AFP-L3 alone, p=0.0614; none vs. DCP alone, p<0.0001 (Mann-Whitney U test).

b

None vs. AFP-L3 alone, p=0.0075 (Mann-Whitney U test).

c

None vs. DCP alone, p=0.0018 (Chi-square test).

Table 2.

Morphological tumor progression based on imaging findings according to the number of elevated tumor markers (n=685) [43]

Number of elevated tumor markers 0 (n=159) 1 (n=220) 2 (n=153) 3 (n=153)
Size of largest tumor (cm)a 2.24 ± 1.41 3.18 ± 2.61 3.72 ± 3.18 5.57 ± 3.69
Number of tumorsb 1.42 ± 0.97 1.57 ± 1.00 2.09 ± 2.19 2.67 ± 2.59
Portal vein thrombosisc 3 (1.9%) 14 (6.4%) 24 (15.7%) 50 (32.7%)
Open in a new tab

Cut-off points: AFP, 20 ng/mL; AFP-L3, 10%; DCP, 40 mAU/mL.

a

None vs. 1 marker, none vs. 2 markers, and 2 markers vs. 3 markers, p<0.0001 (Mann-Whitney U test).

b

None vs. 2 markers, p=0.0105; 2 markers vs. 3 markers, p=0.0189 (Mann-Whitney U test).

c

None vs. 1 marker, p=0.0677; 1 marker vs. 2 markers, p=0.0055; 2 markers vs. 3 markers, p=0.0009 (Chi-square test).

Table 3.

Association between TNM tumor stagea and the number of elevated tumor markers (n=685) [43]

Number of elevated tumor markers Stage I (n=182) Stage II (n=261) Stage III (n=147) Stage IV (n=95)
None (n=159) 69 (43.4%) 68 (42.8%) 19 (11.9%) 3 (1.9%)
1 marker (n=220) 61 (27.7%) 101 (45.9%) 45 (20.5%) 13 (5.9%)
2 markers (n=153) 44 (28.8%) 51 (33.3%) 34 (22.2%) 24 (15.7%)
3 markers (n=153) 8 (5.2%) 41 (26.8%) 49 (32.0%) 55 (36.0%)
Open in a new tab

Cut-off points: AFP, 20 ng/mL; AFP-L3, 10%; DCP, 40 mAU/mL.

a

TNM stage as defined by Liver Cancer Study of Japan [26].

Elevations in tumor markers are also associated with pathologic characteristics of HCC [44]. Table 4 demonstrates the association between the number of elevated tumor markers and the size and number of HCC lesions, differentiation, growth type [40], and portal vein invasion based on pathologic examination of resected HCC specimens in 173 patients who underwent hepatectomy. In addition to increases in tumor size, there were increases in the prevalence of moderately or poorly differentiated HCC, HCC with infiltrative growth, and microscopic portal vein invasion as the number of elevated tumor markers increased, all of which indicate the progressive nature of HCC. Thus, these tumor markers reflect HCC progression in terms of pathologic features as well as findings on imaging studies.

Table 4.

Morphological tumor progression based on pathologic examination according to the number of elevated tumor markers (n=173) [44]

Number of elevated tumor markers 0 (n=47) 1 (n=57) 2 (n=38) 3 (n=31)
Size of largest tumor (cm)a 2.25 ± 1.09 2.96 ± 2.02 3.75 ± 2.88 4.87 ± 3.74
Multiple tumors 7 (14.9%) 7 (12.3%) 8 (21.1%) 7 (22.6%)
Moderate or poor differentiationb 21 (44.7%) 30 (52.6%) 29 (76.3%) 29 (93.5%)
Infiltrative growth typec 3 (6.4%) 4 (7.0%) 4 (10.5%) 11 (35.5%)
Portal vein invasiond 3 (6.4%) 5 (8.8%) 11 (28.9%) 21 (67.7%)
Open in a new tab

Cut-off points: AFP, 20 ng/mL; AFP-L3, 5%; DCP, 40 mAU/mL.

a

p<0.0001 (Jonckheere-Terpstra test)

b

p<0.0001

c

p<0.0001

d

p=0.0010 (Cochran-Armitage test).

Predicting Survival of Patients with HCC Based on Tumor Markers

Figure 2 shows the survival rates after HCC diagnosis according to elevations in each tumor marker. The survival rate in patients with any elevated tumor marker was significantly lower than that in patients without any elevated tumor markers (p<0.0001). Lower survival rates in patients with elevated AFP-L3 or DCP at diagnosis may result from the progressive nature of HCC in these patients. Indeed, previous studies reported that AFP-L3 elevation is associated with a higher rate of recurrence [45] and a lower survival rate [45,46]. In addition, DCP elevation has been associated with higher recurrence and lower survival rates [47,48].

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Patient survival according to the presence of tumor marker elevation. p<0.0001 for all comparisons.

Despite the weak association between HCC progression and AFP elevation, the survival rate is lower in patients with AFP elevation. Previous studies have found a higher incidence of HCC in patients with elevated AFP [49,50]. Therefore, AFP elevation may reflect the potential risk of HCC development in the background liver more strongly than it reflects HCC progression.

Elevations of combinations of these three tumor markers further discriminate the survival of patients with HCC (fig. 3). According to our previous analysis, the number of elevated tumor markers is associated with patient survival after diagnosis independent of remnant liver function (i.e., Child-Pugh class) and treatment modalities used [43].

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Patient survival according to the number of the elevated tumor markers [43]. 0 vs. 1, p=0.0181; 1 vs. 2, p=0.0141; 2 vs. 3, p<0.0001.

Staging of HCC Patients Based Solely on Serum Markers

Since liver function, in addition to tumor extension, is an important factor affecting the prognosis of patients with HCC, several prognostic staging systems for HCC that incorporate parameters indicating both tumor progression and remnant liver function have been proposed [51,52,53,54,55,56]. Only a few staging systems include tumor markers as factors [51,53]; however, as shown in this review, tumor markers are associated with survival in HCC patients.

As described above, Child-Pugh classification is not perfectly objective as an estimate of liver function. In a previous study, Tateishi et al. proposed a new staging system for HCC in which only serum albumin and bilirubin values are used as indicators of remnant liver function [56]; this approach allows for objective and standardized evaluation of remnant liver function. A more recent study also reported that the combination of serum bilirubin and albumin shows better discriminatory ability than Child-Pugh class for prognosis in patients with HCC [57]. The question therefore arises, to what extent does the combination of serum values of AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP (as tumor progression indicators) and bilirubin and albumin (as remnant liver function indicators) constitute an objective prognostic staging system for patients with HCC?

A staging system for HCC that is based solely on serum markers, not involving imaging or pathologic or clinical evaluations, was developed and its ability to discriminate patient survival was evaluated [58]. Among factors reflecting remnant liver function, serum albumin levels of above 3.5 g/dL, 2.8-3.5 g/dL, or below 2.8 g/dL were scored as 0, 1, or 2, respectively. Serum total bilirubin levels of below 1.0 mg/dL, 1.0-2.0 mg/dL, or above 2.0 mg/dL were scored as 0, 1, or 2, respectively. Liver function was then categorized by the sum of these two scores as A (0 or 1), B (2 or 3), or C (4). As a tumor progression factor, we simply used the number of elevated tumor markers. The HCC staging score based on these laboratory data was calculated as the sum of the tumor progression factor and liver function factor, as shown in table 5. We referred to this as the BALAD score, based on the first letter of each of the five serum markers (Bilirubin, Albumin, Lens culinaris agglutinin A-reactive fraction of AFP, AFP, and DCP). The BALAD score discriminates patient survival after diagnosis well, and is comparable to staging systems based on imaging studies and Child-Pugh class [58]. In addition, a recent study showed that this score could predict the prognosis of patients with HCC in different countries despite differences in HCC etiology [59].

Table 5.

Calculation of the BALAD score

Contribution to BALAD score 0 1 2 3
Bilirubin-albumin score A B C
Number of elevated tumor markers 0 1 2 3
Open in a new tab

The BALAD score is the sum of the remnant liver function score (bilirubin-albumin score) and tumor progression score (number of elevated tumor markers), e.g., a bilirubin-albumin score of B contributes 1 point, so a patient with two elevated tumor markers and a bilirubin-albumin score of B has a BALAD score of 2 + 1 = 3.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Evaluating Patients with HCC Based on Serum Markers Alone

The advantage of this staging system based solely on serum markers is its objectivity. The results are numerical and are not influenced by the quality of imaging technology, operator skill, or subjective evaluation. Since this staging can be based on one serum sample and uses one standard, HCC stage can be standardized across countries and time periods (if stored serum samples are available). In contrast, a staging system based on serum markers alone is not applicable to diagnosis, treatment planning, or treatment itself because of the lack of imaging information; imaging studies are mandatory for these purposes. This staging system is not intended to be a treatment allocation system: it is solely for staging HCC to predict patient outcomes. In addition, this serum marker-based staging system is not applicable for patients being administered drugs that can influence the levels of serum markers or in the presence of disorders that can influence the levels of these serum markers.

Perspective

Although biomarkers are not widely accepted as important clinical tools, they contribute valuable information for the management of patients with HCC, with regards to surveillance, diagnosis, evaluation of treatment efficacy, and prediction of outcomes. Their usefulness does not vary by country or HCC etiology. In addition to the HCC tumor markers reviewed here (AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP), many serum biomarkers, including glypican-3, insulin-like growth factor, osteopontin, golgi protein-73, and squamous cellular carcinoma antigen, have been investigated as candidates for HCC tumor markers [60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. These novel potential HCC tumor markers, alone or in combination with other markers, will further contribute to the management of patients with HCC. In addition, several serum markers or indices of liver fibrosis have been reported as risk factors of HCC development or prognostic factors in HCC [67,68,69]. These markers of liver fibrosis may further improve the prediction of outcome in patients with HCC.

References

  • 1.Tsukuma H, Hiyama T, Tanaka S, Nakao M, Yabuuchi T, Kitamura T, Nakanishi K, Fujimoto I, Inoue A, Yamazaki H, Kawashima T. Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with chronic liver disease. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1797–1801. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199306243282501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Oka H, Tamori A, Kuroki T, Kobayashi K, Yamamoto S. Prospective study of alpha-fetoprotein in cirrhotic patients monitored for development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 1994;19:61–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Di Bisceglie AM, Sterling RK, Chung RT, Everhart JE, Dienstag JL, Bonkovsky HL, Wright EC, Everson GT, Lindsay KL, Lok AS, Lee WM, Morgan TR, Ghany MG, Gretch DR. HALT-C Trial Group: Serum alpha-fetoprotein levels in patients with advanced hepatitis C results from the HALT-C Trial. J Hepatol. 2005;43:434–441. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.03.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Taketa K, Sekiya C, Namiki M, Akamatsu K, Ohta Y, Endo Y, Kosaka K. Lectin-reactive profiles of alpha-fetoprotein characterizing hepatocellular carcinoma and related conditions. Gastroenterology. 1990;99:508–518. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(90)91034-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Taketa K, Endo Y, Sekiya C, Tanikawa K, Koji T, Taga H, Satomura S, Matsuura S, Kawai T, Hirai H. A collaborative study for the evaluation of lectin-reactive α-fetoproteins in early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1993;53:5419–5423. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shimizu K, Taniichi T, Satomura S, Matsuura S, Taga H, Taketa K. Establishment of assay kits for the determination of microheterogeneities of alpha-fetoprotein using lectin-affinity electrophoresis. Clin Chim Acta. 1993;214:3–12. doi: 10.1016/0009-8981(93)90297-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Oka H, Saito A, Ito K, Kumada T, Satomura S, Kasugai H, Osaki Y, Seki T, Kudo M, Tanaka M. Collaborative Hepato-Oncology Study Group of Japan: Multicenter prospective analysis of newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma with respect to the percentage of Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive alpha-fetoprotein. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;16:1378–1383. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2001.02643.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liebman HA, Furie BC, Tong MJ, Blanchard RA, Lo KJ, Lee SD, Coleman MS, Furie B. Des-gamma-carboxy (abnormal) prothrombin as a serum marker of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1427–1431. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198405313102204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Okuda H, Obata H, Nakanishi T, Furukawa R, Hashimoto E. Production of abnormal prothrombin (des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin) by hepatocellular carcinoma. A clinical and experimental study. J Hepatol. 1987;4:357–363. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(87)80546-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mita Y, Aoyagi Y, Yanagi M, Suda T, Suzuki Y, Asakura H. The usefulness of determining des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin by sensitive enzyme immunoassay in the early diagnosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 1998;82:1643–1648. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980501)82:9<1643::aid-cncr8>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Okuda H, Nakanishi T, Takatsu K, Saito A, Hayashi N, Watanabe K, Magario N, Yokoo T, Naraki T. Measurement of serum levels of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma by a revised enzyme immunoassay kit with increased sensitivity. Cancer. 1999;85:812–818. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nomura F, Ishijima M, Kuwa K, Tanaka N, Nakai T, Ohnishi K. Serum des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin levels determined by a new generation of sensitive immunoassays in patients with small-sized hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:650–654. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.00930.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Okuda H, Nakanishi T, Takatsu K, Saito A, Hayashi N, Takasaki K, Takenami K, Yamamoto M, Nakano M. Serum levels of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin measured using the revised enzyme immunoassay kit with increased sensitivity in relation to clinicopathologic features of solitary hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;88:544–549. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fujiyama S, Tanaka M, Maeda S, Ashihara H, Hirata R, Tomita K. Tumor markers in early diagnosis, follow-up and management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology. 2002;62((suppl 1)):57–63. doi: 10.1159/000048277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bruix J, Sherman M. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011;53:1020–1022. doi: 10.1002/hep.24199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56:908–943. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Johnson PJ, Pirrie SJ, Cox TF, Berhane S, Teng M, Palmer D, Morse J, Hull D, Patman G, Kagebayashi C, Hussain S, Graham J, Reeves H, Satomura S. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma using a prospectively developed and validated model based on serological biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:144–153. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kumada T, Nakano S, Takeda I, Kiriyama S, Sone Y, Hayashi K, Katoh H, Endoh T, Sassa T, Satomura S. Clinical utility of Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive alpha-fetoprotein in small hepatocellular carcinoma: special reference to imaging diagnosis. J Hepatol. 1999;30:125–130. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(99)80016-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tada T, Kumada T, Toyoda H, Kiriyama S, Sone Y, Tanikawa M, Hisanaga Y, Kitabatake S, Kuzuya T, Nonogaki K, Shimizu J, Yamaguchi A, Isogai M, Kaneoka Y, Washizu J, Satomura S. Relationship between Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive α-fetoprotein and pathologic features of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2005;25:848–853. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2005.01111.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Koike Y, Shiratori Y, Sato S, Obi S, Teratani T, Imamura M, Yoshida H, Shiina S, Omata M. Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin as a useful predisposing factor for the development of portal venous invasion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective analysis of 227 patients. Cancer. 2001;91:561–569. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20010201)91:3<561::aid-cncr1035>3.0.co;2-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Toyoda H, Kumada T, Osaki Y, Oka H, Kudo M. Role of tumor markers in assessment of tumor progression and prediction of outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. 2007;37((suppl 2)):S166–S171. doi: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2007.00181.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yamamoto K, Imamura H, Matsuyama Y, Hasegawa K, Beck Y, Sugawara Y, Makuuchi M, Kokudo N. Significance of alpha-fetoprotein and des-γ-carboxy prothrombin in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing hepatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2795–2804. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0618-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Yamanaka J, Yamanaka N, Nakasho K, Tanaka T, Ando T, Yasui C, Kuroda N, Takata M, Maeda S, Matsushita K, Uematsu K, Okamoto E. Clinicopathologic analysis of stage II-III hepatocellular carcinoma showing early massive recurrence after liver resection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;15:1192–1198. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1746.2000.02323.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.International Union Against Cancer (UICC) 6th ed. New York: NY: Wiley; 2002. Liver. In: Sobin LH, Wittekind CH eds. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours; pp. 81–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vauthey JN, Lauwers GY, Esnaola NF, Do KA, Belghiti J, Mirza N, Curley SA, Ellis LM, Regimbeau JM, Rashid A, Cleary KR, Nagorney DM. Simplified staging for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1527–1536. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.6.1527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan: The general rules for the clinical and pathological study of primary liver cancer (English Ed.) Tokyo: Kaneraha & Co. Ltd; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kawata S, Murakami T, Kim T, Hori M, Federle MP, Kumano S, Sugihara E, Makino S, Nakamura H, Kudo M. Multidetector CT, diagnostic impact of slice thickness on detection of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:61–66. doi: 10.2214/ajr.179.1.1790061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ichikawa T, Erturk SM, Araki T. Multiphasic contrast-enhanced multidetector-row CT of liver: contrast-enhancement theory and practical scan protocol with a combination of fixed injection duration and patients’ body-weight-tailored dose of contrast material. Eur J Radiol. 2006;58:165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Numata K, Fukuda H, Miwa H, Ishii T, Moriya S, Kondo M, Nozaki A, Morimoto M, Okada M, Takebayashi S, Maeda S, Nozawa A, Nakano M, Tanaka K. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography findings using a perflubutane-based contrast agent in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:95–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Quaia E, De Paoli L, Angileri R, Pizzolato R, Cabibbo B, Cova MA. Evidence of diagnostic enhancement pattern in hepatocellular carcinoma nodules ≤2 cm according to the AASLD/EASL revised criteria. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38:1245–1253. doi: 10.1007/s00261-013-0031-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Di Martino M, De Filippis G, De Santis A, Geiger D, Del Monte M, Lombardo CV, Rossi M, Corradini SG, Mennini G, Catalano C. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: prospective comparison of US CT and MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:887–896. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2691-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hamm B, Staks T, Mühler A, Bollow M, Taupitz M, Frenzel T, Wolf KJ, Weinmann HJ, Lange L. Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;195:785–792. doi: 10.1148/radiology.195.3.7754011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Vogl TJ, Kümmel S, Hammerstingl R, Schellenbeck M, Schumacher G, Balzer T, Schwarz W, Müller PK, Bechstein WO, Mack MG, Söllner O, Felix R. Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology. 1996;200:59–67. doi: 10.1148/radiology.200.1.8657946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kim SH, Kim SH, Lee J, Kim MJ, Jeon YH, Park Y, Choi D, Lee WJ, Lim HK. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI versus triple-phase MDCT for the preoperative detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1675–1681. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Van Beers BE, Pastor CM, Hussain HK. Primovist, Eovist: what to expect? J Hepatol. 2012;57:421–429. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Reimer P, Rummeny EJ, Shamsi K, Balzer T, Daldrup HE, Tombach B, Hesse T, Berns T, Peters PE. Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: dose, safety aspects, and pulse sequence. Radiology. 1996;199:177–183. doi: 10.1148/radiology.199.1.8633143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shirabe K, Kajiyama K, Abe T, Sakamoto S, Fukuya T, Akazawa K, Morita K, Maehara Y. Predictors of microscopic portal vein invasion by hepatocellular carcinoma: measurement of portal perfusion defect area ratio. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:1431–1436. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.05847.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tada T, Kumada T, Toyoda H, Ito T, Sone Y, Kaneoka Y, Maeda A, Okuda S, Otobe K, Takahashi K. Utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasound with perflubutane for diagnosing the macroscopic type of small nodular hepatocellular carcinomas. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2157–2166. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3254-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tada T, Kumada T, Toyoda H, Ito T, Sone Y, Okuda S, Ogawa S, Igura T, Imai Y. Diagnostic accuracy for macroscopic classification of nodular hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and angiography-assisted computed tomography. J Gastroenterol. 2015;50:85–94. doi: 10.1007/s00535-014-0947-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ikai I, Kudo M, Arii S, Omata M, Kojiro M, Sakamoto M, Takayasu K, Hayashi N, Makuuchi M, Matsuyama Y, Monden M. Report of the 18th follow-up survey of primary liver cancer in Japan. Hepatol Res. 2010;40:1043–1059. doi: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2010.00731.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pugh RN, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, Pietroni MC, Williams R. Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg. 1973;60:646–649. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800600817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kaibori M, Ishizaki M, Matsui K, Kwon AH. Predictors of microvascular invasion before hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102:462–468. doi: 10.1002/jso.21631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Toyoda H, Kumada T, Kiriyama S, Sone Y, Tanikawa M, Hisanaga Y, Yamaguchi A, Isogai M, Kaneoka Y, Washizu J. Prognostic significance of simultaneous measurement of three tumor markers in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:111–117. doi: 10.1016/s1542-3565(05)00855-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Toyoda H, Kumada T, Tada T, Niinomi T, Ito T, Kaneoka Y, Maeda A. Prognostic significance of a combination of pre- and post-treatment tumor markers for hepatocellular carcinoma curatively treated with hepatectomy. J Hepatol. 2012;57:1251–1257. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hayashi K, Kumada T, Nakano S, Takeda I, Sugiyama K, Kiriyama S, Sone Y, Miyata A, Shimizu H, Satomura S. Usefulness of measurement of Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of alpha-fetoprotein as a marker of prognosis and recurrence of small hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:3028–3033. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01378.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Yamashita F, Tanaka M, Satomura S, Tanikawa K. Prognostic significance of Lens culinaris agglutinin A-reactive alpha-fetoprotein in small hepatocellular carcinomas. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:996–1001. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(96)70067-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Toyoda H, Kumada T, Kaneoka Y, Osaki Y, Kimura T, Arimoto A, Oka H, Yamazaki O, Manabe T, Urano F, Chung H, Kudo M, Matsunaga T. Prognostic value of pretreatment levels of tumor markers for hepatocellular carcinoma on survival after curative treatment of patients with HCC. J Hepatol. 2008;49:223–232. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2008.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kobayashi M, Ikeda K, Kawamura Y, Yatsuji H, Hosaka T, Sezaki H, Akuta N, Suzuki F, Suzuki Y, Saitoh S, Arase Y, Kumada H. High serum des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin level predicts poor prognosis after radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2009;115:571–580. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tateyama M, Yatsuhashi H, Taura N, Motoyoshi Y, Nagaoka S, Yanagi K, Abiru S, Yano K, Komori A, Migita K, Nakamura M, Nagahama H, Sasaki Y, Miyakawa Y, Ishibashi H. Alpha-fetoprotein above normal levels as a risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients infected with hepatitis C virus. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:92–100. doi: 10.1007/s00535-010-0293-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kumada T, Toyoda H, Kiriyama S, Tanikawa M, Hisanaga Y, Kanamori A, Tada T, Tanaka J, Yoshizawa H. Predictive value of tumor markers for hepatocarcinogenesis in patients with hepatitis C virus. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:536–544. doi: 10.1007/s00535-010-0349-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) Investigators. A new prognostic system for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of 435 patients: the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) investigators. Hepatology. 1998;28:751–755. doi: 10.1002/hep.510280322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Llovet JM, Brú C, Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis. 1999;19:329–338. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1007122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Chevret S, Trinchet JC, Mathieu D, Rached AA, Beaugrand M, Chastang C. A new prognostic classification for predicting survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hépatocellulaire. J Hepatol. 1999;31:133–141. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8278(99)80173-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Leung TW, Tang AM, Zee B, Lau WY, Lai PB, Leung KL, Lau JT, Yu SC, Johnson PJ. Construction of the Chinese University Prognostic Index for hepatocellular carcinoma and comparison with the TNM staging system, the Okuda staging system, and the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program staging system: a study based on 926 patients. Cancer. 2002;94:1760–1769. doi: 10.1002/cncr.10384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kudo M, Chung H, Haji S, Osaki Y, Oka H, Seki T, Kasugai H, Sasaki Y, Matsunaga T. Validation of a new prognostic staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma: the JIS score compared with the CLIP score. Hepatology. 2004;40:1396–1405. doi: 10.1002/hep.20486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tateishi R, Yoshida H, Shiina S, Imamura H, Hasegawa K, Teratani T, Obi S, Sato S, Koike Y, Fujishima T, Makuuchi M, Omata M. Proposal of a new prognostic model for hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of 403 patients. Gut. 2005;54:419–425. doi: 10.1136/gut.2003.035055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Johnson PJ, Berhane S, Kagebayashi C, Satomura S, Teng M, Reeves HL, O'Beirne J, Fox R, Skowronska A, Palmer D, Yeo W, Mo F, Lai P, Inarrairaegui M, Chan SL, Sangro B, Miksad R, Tada T, Kumada T, Toyoda H. Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence based approach-the ‘ALBI’ grade. J Clin Oncol (in press) doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Toyoda H, Kumada T, Osaki Y, Oka H, Urano F, Kudo M, Matsunaga T. Staging hepatocellular carcinoma by a novel scoring system (BALAD score) based on serum markers. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1528–1536. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Fox R, Berhane S, Teng M, Cox T, Tada T, Toyoda H, Kumada T, Kagebayashi C, Satomura S, Johnson PJ. Biomarker-based prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma: validation and extension of the BALAD model. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:2090–2098. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hippo Y, Watanabe K, Watanabe A, Midorikawa Y, Yamamoto S, Ihara S, Tokita S, Iwanari H, Ito Y, Nakano K, Nezu J, Tsunoda H, Yoshino T, Ohizumi I, Tsuchiya M, Ohnishi S, Makuuchi M, Hamakubo T, Kodama T, Aburatani H. Identification of soluble NH2-terminal fragment of glypican-3 as a serological marker for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2004;64:2418–2423. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-03-2191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Capurro M, Wanless IR, Sherman M, Deboer G, Shi W, Miyoshi E, Filmus J. Glypican-3: a novel serum and histochemical marker for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2003;125:89–97. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(03)00689-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Nakatsura T, Yoshitake Y, Senju S, Monji M, Komori H, Motomura Y, Hosaka S, Beppu T, Ishiko T, Kamohara H, Ashihara H, Katagiri T, Furukawa Y, Fujiyama S, Ogawa M, Nakamura Y, Nishimura Y. Glypican-3, over-expressed specifically in human hepatocellular carcinoma, is a novel tumor marker. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;306:16–25. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(03)00908-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tsai JF, Jeng JE, Chuang LY, You HL, Wang LY, Hsieh MY, Chen SC, Chuang WL, Lin ZY, Yu ML, Dai CY. Serum insulin-like growth factor-II as a serologic marker of small hepatocellular carcinoma. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2005;40:68–75. doi: 10.1080/00365520410009311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kim J, Ki SS, Lee SD, Han CJ, Kim YC, Park SH, Cho SY, Hong YJ, Park HY, Lee M, Jung HH, Lee KH, Jeong SH. Elevated plasma osteopontin levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2051–2059. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00679.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Marrero JA, Romano PR, Nikolaeva O, Steel L, Mehta A, Fimmel CJ, Comunale MA, D'Amelio A, Lok AS, Block TM. GP73, a resident Golgi glycoprotein, is a novel serum marker for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2005;43:1007–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.05.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Giannelli G, Marinosci F, Trerotoli P, Volpe A, Quaranta M, Dentico P, Antonaci S. SCCA antigen combined with alpha-fetoprotein as serologic markers of HCC. Int J Cancer. 2005;117:506–509. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Yamasaki K, Tateyama M, Abiru S, Komori A, Nagaoka S, Saeki A, Hashimoto S, Sasaki R, Bekki S, Kugiyama Y, Miyazoe Y, Kuno A, Korenaga M, Togayachi A, Ocho M, Mizokami M, Narimatsu H, Yatsuhashi H. Elevated serum levels of Wisteria floribunda agglutinin-positive human Mac-2 binding protein predict the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis C patients. Hepatology. 2014;60:1563–1570. doi: 10.1002/hep.27305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Tamaki N, Kurosaki M, Matsuda S, Muraoka M, Yasui Y, Suzuki S, Hosokawa T, Ueda K, Tsuchiya K, Nakanishi H, Itakura J, Takahashi Y, Asahina Y, Izumi N. Non-invasive prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma development using serum fibrosis marker in chronic hepatitis C patients. J Gastroenterol. 2014;49:1495–1503. doi: 10.1007/s00535-013-0914-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Toyoda H, Kumada T, Tada T, Kaneoka Y, Maeda A. A laboratory marker, FIB-4 index, as a predictor for long-term outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients after curative hepatic resection. Surgery (in press) doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Liver Cancer are provided here courtesy of Karger Publishers

RESOURCES