Hepatocellular carcinoma staging systems: Hong Kong liver cancer vs Barcelona clinic liver cancer in a Western population

Laura Bainy Rodrigues de Freitas; Larisse Longo; Deivid Santos; Ivana Grivicich; Mário Reis Álvares-da-Silva

doi:10.4254/wjh.v11.i9.678

Hepatocellular carcinoma staging systems: Hong Kong liver cancer vs Barcelona clinic liver cancer in a Western population

World J Hepatol. 2019 Sep 27;11(9):678-688. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v11.i9.678.

Authors

Laura Bainy Rodrigues de Freitas¹, Larisse Longo¹, Deivid Santos², Ivana Grivicich³, Mário Reis Álvares-da-Silva¹

Affiliations

¹ Graduate Program in Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-003, Brazil.
² School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-003, Brazil.
³ Graduate Program in Health-Applied Cellular and Molecular Biology, ULBRA. Canoas, RS 92425-900, Brazil.

Abstract

Background: Despite being the world's most widely used system for staging and therapeutic guidance in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment, the Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) system has limitations, especially regarding intermediate-grade (BCLC-B) tumors. The recently proposed Hong Kong liver cancer (HKLC) staging system appears useful but requires validation in Western populations.

Aim: To evaluate the agreement between BCLC and HKLC staging on the management of HCC in a Western population, estimating the overall patient survival.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of HCC patients treated at a university hospital in southern Brazil between 2011 and 2016. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. HCC staging was carried out according to the HKLC and BCLC systems to assess treatment agreement. Overall survival was estimated based on the treatment proposed in each system.

Results: A total of 519 HCC patients were assessed. Of these, 178 (34.3%) were HKLC-I; 95 (18.3%) HKLC-IIA; 47 (9.1%) HKLC-IIB; 29 (5.6%) HKLC-IIIA; 30 (5.8%) HKLC-IIIB; 75 (14.4%) HKLC-IV; and 65 (12.5%) HKLC-V. According to the BCLC, 25 (4.9%) were BCLC-0; 246 (47.4%) BCLC-A; 107 (20.6%) BCLC-B; 76 (14.6%) BCLC-C; and 65 (12.5%) BCLC-D. The general agreement between the two systems was 80.0% - BCLC-0 and HKLC-I (100%); BCLC-A and HKLC-I/HKLC-II (96.7%); BCLC-B and HKLC-III (46.7%); BCLC-C and HKLC-IV (98.7%); BCLC-D and HKLC-V (41.5%). When sub-classifying BCLC-A, HKLC-IIB, HKLC-IIIA and HKLC-IIIB stages according to the up-to-7 in/out criterion, 13.4, 66.0, 100 and 36.7%, respectively, of the cases were classified as up-to-7 out.

Conclusion: In a Western population, the general agreement between the two systems was 80.0%, although in BCLC-B cases the agreement was low, suggesting that some individuals could be candidates for the curative treatment recommended by the HKLC. The authors suggest that the BCLC system should be routinely employed, although for BCLC-B cases it should be associated with the HKLC system.

Keywords: Barcelona clinic liver cancer staging system; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Hong Kong liver cancer staging system.