• Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • Centro Académico de Salud (CAS)
    • Hospital Universitario Austral -HUA-
    • Investigación Aplicada
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • Centro Académico de Salud (CAS)
    • Hospital Universitario Austral -HUA-
    • Investigación Aplicada
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Does the Place Where Ultrasound Is Performed Impact Its Effectiveness?

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    IA - Piñero (125.0Kb)
    Date
    2019-03-01
    Author
    Piñero, Federico.
    Rubinstein, Fernando.
    Marciano, Sebastián.
    Fernández, Nora.
    Silva, Jorge.
    Zambelo, Yanina.
    Anders, Margarita.
    et al.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Abstract Background: Biannual ultrasound (US) is recommended as the clinical screening tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The effectiveness of surveillance according to the place where US is performed has not been previously reported. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of US performed in the center responsible for follow-up as opposed to US proceeding from centers other than that of follow-up. Methods: This is a multicenter cohort study from Argentina. The last US was categorized as done in the same center or done in a different center from the institution of the patient's follow-up. Surveillance failure was defined as HCC diagnosis not meeting Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages 0-A or when no nodules were observed at HCC diagnosis. Results: From 533 patients with HCC, 62.4% were under routine surveillance with a surveillance failure of 38.8%. After adjusting for a propensity score matching, BCLC stage and lead-time survival bias, surveillance was associated with a significant survival benefit [HR of 0.51 (CI 0.38; 0.69)]. Among patients under routine surveillance (n = 345), last US was performed in the same center in 51.6% and in a different center in 48.4%. Similar rates of surveillance failure were observed between US done in the same or in a different center (32% vs. 26.3%; P = 0.25). Survival was not significantly different between both surveillance modalities [HR 0.79 (CI 0.53; 1.20)]. Conclusions: Routine surveillance for HCC in the daily practice improved survival either when performed in the same center or in a different center from that of patient's follow-up.
    URI
    https://riu.austral.edu.ar/handle/123456789/958
    Collections
    • Investigación Aplicada

    xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.info-link
    Licencia Creative Commons
    xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.contact-link1 - xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.contact-link2
    xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.info-link2
     

     


    xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.info-link
    Licencia Creative Commons
    xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.contact-link1 - xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.contact-link2
    xmlui.dri2xhtml.structural.info-link2