Table 5.
Performance of each score in the prediction of survival after TACE
| Model | LRT χ2 | AIC |
|---|---|---|
| mHAP-III | 41.72 | 4,625.49 |
| ITA.LI.CA | 40.39 | 4,642.82 |
| JIS | 33.48 | 4,639.73 |
| MESIAH | 33.41 | 4,633.80 |
| CLIP | 30.89 | 4,642.32 |
| MESH | 22.35 | 4,646.86 |
| mHAP-II | 22.15 | 4,649.06 |
| HAP | 20.57 | 4,650.64 |
| HKLC | 20.21 | 4,660.99 |
| BCLC | 18.72 | 4,652.49 |
| MELD | 5.52 | 4,661.69 |
| pALBI | 4.42 | 4,664.79 |
| ALBI | 1.95 | 4,667.26 |
| CTP | 1.39 | 4,667.82 |
LRT χ2 and AIC values were used to compare different scoring and staging systems. Lower AIC and higher likelihood ratio values indicate better prognostic discrimination ability of a given staging/scoring system. TACE, transarterial chemoembolization; LRT χ2, likelihood ratio test; AIC, Akaike information criterion; mHAP-III, modified hepatoma arterial embolization III; ITA.LI.CA, Italian Liver Cancer; MESIAH, Model to Estimate Survival In Ambulatory HCC patients; JIS, Japan Integrated Staging system; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; MESH, model to estimate survival for hepatocellular carcinoma; mHAP-II, modified hepatoma arterial embolization II; HKLC, Hong Kong Liver Cancer; HAP, hepatoma arterial embolization; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; PALBI, platelet-albumin-bilirubin; ALBI, albumin-bilirubin; CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh.