Easy clinical predictor for low BCAA to tyrosine ratio in chronic liver disease patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Usefulness of ALBI score as nutritional prognostic marker

Background/Aim Low branched‐chain amino acid (BCAA) to tyrosine ratio (BTR) is known as an indicator of amino acid imbalance. We elucidated usefulness of newly developed albumin–bilirubin (ALBI) score as alternative methods of BTR in patients with naïve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) retrospectively...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer medicine (Malden, MA) MA), 2021-06, Vol.10 (11), p.3584-3592
Hauptverfasser: Hiraoka, Atsushi, Kato, Masaya, Marui, Kaori, Murakami, Taisei, Onishi, Kei, Adachi, Tomoko, Matsuoka, Junko, Ueki, Hidetaro, Yoshino, Takeaki, Tsuruta, Miho, Aibiki, Toshihiko, Okudaira, Tomonari, Kuroda, Taira, Iwasaki, Ryuichiro, Suga, Yoshifumi, Miyata, Hideki, Ninomiya, Tomoyuki, Hirooka, Masashi, Abe, Masanori, Matsuura, Bunzo, Michitaka, Kojiro, Hiasa, Yoichi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background/Aim Low branched‐chain amino acid (BCAA) to tyrosine ratio (BTR) is known as an indicator of amino acid imbalance. We elucidated usefulness of newly developed albumin–bilirubin (ALBI) score as alternative methods of BTR in patients with naïve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) retrospectively. Materials/Methods In 842 patients with HCC and without BCAA supplementation (71 years, male 614, Child‐Pugh A:B:C = 689:116:37), relationships among BTR and clinical features were evaluated. Of those, 438 patients, with Milan criteria HCC, treated curatively were divided into the high‐BTR (>4.4) (n = 293) and low‐BTR (≤4.4) (n = 145) groups. The prognostic value of BTR was evaluated using inverse probability weighting (IPW) with propensity score. Results The low‐BTR group showed worse prognosis than the other (3‐, 5‐, 10‐year overall survival rates: 88.9% vs. 86.3%/70.5% vs. 78.1%/38.1% vs. 52.3%, respectively; p 
ISSN:2045-7634
2045-7634
DOI:10.1002/cam4.3908