Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Clinical evaluation of Elecsys PIVKA-II for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

Background

Prothrombin induced by vitamin K absence-II (PIVKA-II) was reported as a diagnosis and prognosis marker for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although the development of systemic therapies for advanced HCC has been remarkable, the role of PIVKA-II is unclear. This prospective study aimed to verify Elecsys PIVKA-II compared with Lumipulse PIVKA-II in a cohort with advanced HCC undergoing systemic therapy.

Methods

A total of 62 HCC patients who were treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (ATZ+BEV) and molecular targeted agents (MTAs) were prospectively enrolled at Musashino Red Cross Hospital from January 2020 to December 2020. A total of 208 serum samples from 52 patients were tested using Elecsys PIVKA-II and Lumipulse PIVKA-II assays. Furthermore, the relationship of Elecsys PIVKA-II and progression-free survival (PFS) was investigated with 48 patients (24 ATZ+BEV and 24 MTAs) whose Lumipulse PIVKA-II levels were >40 mAU/mL.

Results

In the test accuracy analysis, the Elecsys assay has a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.92 compared with that of the Lumipulse assay (ATZ+BEV, 0.95; MTAs, 0.91). In the PFS analysis, the number of patients who received ATZ+BEV and MTAs as first- and late-line therapy were 9 and 13, and 15 and 11, respectively. The PIVKA-II response was defined for patients who had a reduction in the Elecsys PIVKA-II level on the first month of treatment evaluation. The PFS of patients with Elecsys PIVKA-II response was significantly longer than that of nonresponse patients (5.8 months vs 3.8 months, p = 0.0205).

Conclusion

The Elecsys PIVKA-II was not only as useful as the Lumipulse PIVKA-II but also for stratifying the PFS of patients with advanced HCC.

Citation: Kaneko S, Kurosaki M, Tsuchiya K, Yasui Y, Hayakawa Y, Inada K, et al. (2022) Clinical evaluation of Elecsys PIVKA-II for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS ONE 17(3): e0265235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265235

Editor: Luca Rinaldi, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", ITALY

Received: December 22, 2021; Accepted: February 23, 2022; Published: March 10, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Kaneko et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Masayuki Kurosaki, Kaoru Tsuchiya, and Namiki Izumi received advisory board fees and honoraria for speakers’ bureau from Bayer, Chugai, Lilly, and Eisai. Namiki Izumi received research funding fees from Roche Diagnostics K.K. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

Prothrombin induced by vitamin K absence-II (PIVKA-II) is an abnormal form of prothrombin secreted into the bloodstream when the activity of vitamin K-dependent carboxylase in the liver is inhibited as a result of the absence of vitamin K or the presence of vitamin K antagonists [1, 2]. In several studies, serum PIVKA-II was found to have a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 48%–62%, 81%–98%, and 59%–84%, respectively, in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [3–5]. Some studies have shown that PIVKA-II was superior to other markers (alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] and lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP [AFP-L3%]) in differentiating primary liver cancer from cirrhosis [6]. Additionally, it could determine whether suspicious liver nodules on ultrasonography were neoplastic or nonneoplastic [7]. According to recent data, the combination of the PIVKA-Ⅱ and AFP could significantly improve the diagnosis of HCC [8]. In patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, the GALAD score, which determines the risk of HCC based on a patient’s sex, age, and serum levels of AFP, AFP-L3, and PIVKA-II, identified patients with any-stage HCC with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 [9].

PIVKA-II was also reported as a prognosis marker in patients with HCC, as PIVKA-II and AFP have a positive correlation with the tumor burden [10]. High serum levels of PIVKA-II are associated with a more aggressive tumor behavior [11], the histologic grade of tumor differentiation [12], and macrovascular invasion (MVI) / portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) [12–14]. PIVKA-II and AFP can also predict the recurrence of HCC and prognosis of HCC patients [15]. The prognostic implications of the expression patterns of three tumor markers, AFP, AFP-L3, and PIVKA-II, have been evaluated in patients with HCC. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival at 5 years postoperatively were significantly stratified by the number of positive markers [16]. Furthermore, the change in the PIVKA-II level during treatments can predict the prognosis of HCC patients [11]. It was also noted that the change in the PIVKA-II and AFP levels were positively associated with the radiological response in patients treated by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) [17–19] and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) [20].

The development of drug therapies for advanced HCC that has remarkably progressed sorafenib [21] was approved for the treatment of unresectable HCC. The first-line therapy in the systemic treatment of advanced HCC dramatically has shifted from oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors to the combination therapy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (ATZ+BEV). The ATZ+BEV was approved because of its ability to significantly prolong the progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients with unresectable HCC compared with that of sorafenib when used as first-line therapy [22]. Additionally, molecular targeted agents (MTAs) such as lenvatinib [23], regorafenib [24], cabozantinib [25], and ramucirumab [26] have been also approved for systemic therapy in patients with unresectable HCC. Although there have been reports on the effects of locoregional therapy such as TACE and HAIC, reports on the course of treatment and the behavior of PIVKA-II for ATZ+BEV and MTAs have been few.

The Elecsys PIVKA-II which was measured by a one-step sandwich assay with ECLIA and has been standardized against purified recombinant des γ carboxy prothrombin from cell culture, shows shorter assay time (18 minutes), simplicity, and potentially higher precision as compared with Lumipulse PIVKA-II, according to manufacture protocol. Moreover, the on-board stability of the Elecsys PIVKA-II reagent is 112 days, 82 days longer than that of Lumipulse PIVKA-II, and can be used without loss of reagent. Based on these points, Elecsys PIVKA-II may become useful widely if clinical practice evaluation is confirmed.

This prospective study aims to comparatively verify Elecsys PIVKA-II and conventional Lumipulse PIVKA-II from the serum samples of patients with unresectable HCC undergoing systemic therapy. We also investigated the ability of Elecsys PIVKA-II to reflect the clinical course of patients with unresectable HCC including comparison between ATZ+BEV and MTAs.

Methods

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Ethical Committee of Musashino Red Cross Hospital (No. 2062) and conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki (revised by Fortaleza in 2013) and Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects (partially revised on February 28, 2017). The written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

1. Patients and sample collections

A total of 62 HCC subjects who were scheduled for treatment with MTAs or immunotherapy were prospectively enrolled at Musashino Red Cross Hospital from January 2020 to December 2020. A series of four blood samples were collected from each patient during regular examination, and the first of the blood samples were drawn prior to any systemic therapy. The serum samples were divided into two tubes and stored at −20°C prior to measurement. Patient data, including age, sex, past history of hepatitis, blood test results, radiological imaging, survival, and PFS, were retrieved from the hospital medical records.

Inclusion criteria for chemotherapy were as follows: metastatic or locally advanced HCC that was unresectable or refractory to TACE with BCLC stage B or C and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1. Child-Pugh (C-P) classification, albumin–bilirubin (ALBI) [27], and mALBI grades [28] were used to assess liver function. The ALBI score was calculated on the basis of the serum albumin and total bilirubin values as previously reported. The ALBI grade was defined as the following: grade 1, ≤−2.60; grade 2, >−2.60 to ≤−1.39; and grade 3, >−1.39. Furthermore, ALBI grade 2 was divided into two subgrades (2a and 2b) using a cutoff value (−2.270), and such ALBI grades were defined as mALBI grades. The evaluation of radiologic response was evaluated according to the RECIST 1.1, as previously reported [29–31].

2. Assay of serum levels of PIVKA-II

The serum PIVKA-II level was determined using commercially available kits Lumipulse PIVKA-II-N (Lumipulse assay, Fujirebio, Tokyo, Japan) and Elecsys PIVKA-II (Elecsys assay, Roche Diagnostics K.K., Tokyo, Japan). Both tests were conducted following the instruction manuals of each kit.

3. Statistical analysis

Correlation was evaluated by the correlation coefficient (R) and linear regression. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare categorical data. Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U test were used to analyze the distribution of continuous variables. Cumulative PFS rates of patients were prepared using the Kaplan–Meier method. The log-rank Mantel–Cox test was used to compare the cumulative PFS curves. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. JMP (v15.2.0 software, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA), and EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan) were used to analyze statistical significance.

Results

1. Trends of PIVKA-II levels in monitoring

A total of 62 cases were enrolled in this study; 10 cases were excluded because of the lack of blood collection series. A total of 208 serum samples from 52 patients were tested using each assay (Fig 1). The trend of increase/decrease of the PIVKA-II level was compared between the Elescys and Lumipulse assays. The second to fourth blood collection from the 52 cases were categorized as “decrease” or “increase” if the sample was less or more than 100% of the previous value, respectively. The agreement rate in the trend of increase/decrease was 93.6% between the two assays. Ten samples had a discrepancy in the trend; however, the PIVKA-II level of these samples had minimal changes against that of the previous value, and the ratio to the previous value ranged from 88% to 115% and 89% to 154% for the Elescys assay and Lumipulse assays, respectively. The units of measurement for the Lumipulse and Elecsys assays were mAU/mL and ng/mL, respectively. Therefore, to study the conversion factor, we calculated the ratio between the measurements of the Elecsys and Lumipulse assays in each sample. The median was 0.36, and the interquartile range was 0.18–0.56 (Fig 2A).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. The flowchart of analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265235.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Analysis for the correlation of Elecsys and Lumipulse PIVKA-II assays.

(A) The X-axis shows the Elecsys/Lumipulse ratio, and the Y-axis shows the number of samples. (B) Comparison of Elecsys and Lumipulse assays for the measurement of serum PIVKA-Ⅱ concentration. (1) All patients, (2) patients treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (ATZ+BEV), and (3) patients treated with molecular targeted agents (MTAs).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265235.g002

2. Correlation of Elecsys and Lumipulse PIVKA-II assays

The correlation between the two assays was examined. The slope of the overall Elecsys assay and Lumipulse assay was 0.82 with an R of 0.92. Of the 52 patients, 27 patients received MTAs and 25 patients received ATZ+BEV. For the MTAs-treated and ATZ+BEV-treated groups, the slope and R of the Elecsys assay and Lumipulse assay were 0.94, R = 0.91 and 0.74, R = 0.95, respectively (Fig 2B). This confirms that the Elecsys assay is as useful as the Lumipulse assay.

3. Elecsys PIVKA-II response and PFS of patients with HCC

Furthermore, we investigated the relationship between Elecsys PIVKA-II and PFS. Patients who were excluded were those who had baseline Lumipulse PIVKA-II level of less than 40 mAU/mL (n = 4). Finally, 48 patients (24 ATZ+BEV and 24 MTAs) were included in this analysis (Fig 1). The baseline characteristics of the patients were shown in Table 1. Among them, 38 (79.2%) patients were male; the median age was 75 years (range, 23–86 years), and 47 (97.9%) patients were Child–Pugh A. The median ALBI score was −2.246. There were 27 (56.2%) and 21 (43.8%) patients with BCLC stages B (intermediate) and C (advanced), respectively. A total of 17 (35.4%) patients had extrahepatic metastasis (EM), and four (8.3%) had a major vascular invasion. The breakdown of patients regarding ATZ+BEV and MTAs therapy was nine and 13 cases as first-line and 15 and 11 cases as late-line, respectively. There was no significant difference between the patients who received ATZ+BEV and MTAs therapy.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of patients with advanced HCC at baseline.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265235.t001

The median PFS of patients treated with ATZ+BEV (n = 24) and MTAs (n = 24) were 4.2 and 4.2 months, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.667). The PIVKA-II response was defined as patients who had a reduction in the Elecsys PIVKA-II level on the first month of treatment evaluation. The PFS of patients with Elecsys PIVKA-II response was significantly longer than that of nonresponse patients (5.8 vs 3.8 months, p = 0.0205) (Fig 3). The baseline factors were not significantly different between PIVKA-Ⅱ responders and non-responders as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, the PFS of response patients tended to be longer than that of nonresponse patients when the patients were divided into the ATZ+BEV and MTAs groups (S1 Fig).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Cumulative progression-free survival (PFS) rates of advanced HCC patients treated by systemic therapy depending on Elecsys PIVKA-II response at first month.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265235.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Clinical characteristics of PIVKA-Ⅱ responders and non-responders.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265235.t002

Discussion

This study provided valuable evidence that the Elecsys PIVKA-II was not only as useful as the Lumipulse PIVKA-II but also for stratifying the PFS of HCC patients treated with ATZ+BEV and MTAs. First, we investigated the relationship between Elecsys PIVKA-II and Lumipulse PIVKA-II as shown in Fig 1. The units of measurement for the Lumipulse and Elecsys assays are mAU/mL and ng/mL, respectively. Regarding the correlation between the two assays, the slope of the overall Elecsys assay and Lumipulse assay was 0.82 with an R of 0.92 (Fig 2). A good correlation between Elecsys and Lumipulse assays was seen with each ratio, which shows that the Elecsys PIVKA-II was as useful as the Lumipulse assay. On the other hands, PIVKA-II is an abnormal prothrombin molecule that lacks carboxylation (Gla) of some or all of the 10 glutamine residues (Glu) at the N-terminus of the prothrombin precursor, and is a complex substance with various forms depending on the degree of carboxylation [32]. It is suggested that it exists as a multiple PIVKA-II protein in various states with different numbers and sites of Glu even in the same patient. Therefore, there is a possibility that the population of PIVKA-II captured by using different assay systems may cause differences and it is difficult for the assay ratios of Elecsys and Lumipulse to converge to a consistent value.

Next, we investigated the utility of the Elecsys PIVKA-II level as a prognosis biomarker in patients with HCC during systemic therapy. PIVKA-II has been considered a useful marker for the diagnosis of HCC as well as AFP. However, it was controversial as a marker during systemic therapy. There are a few reports that have shown that the PIVKA-II response was related to OS and PFS in patients undergoing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy [33]. Other reports showed that a correlation with image evaluation was found in AFP but not in PIVKA-II in lenvatinib therapy [34]. This point largely depends on the timing of evaluation and the therapeutic agent. Conversely, an in vitro study showed that hypoxic stimulation-induced HCC cells (HepG2) produce PIVKA-II and become hypoxic [35]. Since hypoxia during the treatment process may affect the PIVKA-II level, it may be difficult to reflect only the progression of HCC, depending on the evaluation period. However, this point has not been confirmed in vivo and in clinical practice.

Regarding ATZ+BEV, its treatment results as a first-line drug have been shown in clinical trials [22], and it is currently used even after the second-line treatment in actual clinical practice. Recently, the efficacy and safety of ATZ+BEV have been shown in cases where it is used as a late-line treatment or those outside of the criteria of IMbrave150 [36, 37]. In this study, ATZ+BEV was administered to nine patients as first-line treatment and 15 patients as late-line treatment (Table 1). Although there are controversial opinions about the radiological response evaluation of HCC [38], we used RECIST, which is the most objective and reproducible evaluation for radiologic response in HCC [29–31].

Elecsys PIVKA-II was investigated for ATZ+BEV and MTAs; PFS was significantly prolonged in the response group (Fig 3). Although it was difficult to make a solid comparison because of the insufficient number of cases and observation period, we could compare the background characteristics between ATZ+BEV and MTAs, PIVKA-II responder and non-responder, respectively. They were not significantly different respectively, because of a well-designed prospective study (Tables 1, 2). This also indicates that PIVKA-II response is an important factor, though it is difficult to use only baseline factors to predict PFS.

The present study had several limitations. First, although the study showed the usefulness of Elecsys PIVKA-II in a cohort that included patients with advanced HCC, the study population was Japanese; hence, the results may not be generalizable because of racial differences. Second, the observation period and number of patients may be insufficient to arrive at definite comparisons and to evaluate the long-term survival. This study was only about PFS, and it would be desirable to consider whether it will lead to OS. Although the usefulness of PIVKA-II was demonstrated, it should be considered a complementary evaluation in combination with AFP. Combination therapy, such as ATZ+BEV, shows various behaviors; hence, sufficient evaluation is desired not only for image evaluation but also for tumor marker evaluation.

In conclusion, the Elecsys PIVKA-II was not only as useful as the Lumipulse PIVKA-II but also for stratifying the PFS for patients with advanced HCC. Understanding the responses of tumor markers may contribute to the appropriate evaluation and treatment of patients.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Cumulative progression-free survival (PFS) rates of advanced HCC patients treated by atezolizumab and bevacizumab (ATZ+BEV) or molecular targeted agents (MTAs) depending on Elecsys PIVKA-II response at each time point.

(A) PFS of patients treated by ATZ+BEV depending on Elecsys PIVKA-II response at 3, 6, and 9 weeks. (B) PFS of patients treated by MTAs depending on Elecsys PIVKA-II response at 2, 4, and 8 weeks.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265235.s001

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the cooperation of S. Kobori, Musashino Red Cross hospital office, C. Suzuki and Y. Yamaguchi, Division of Clinical laboratory, Musashino Red Cross Hospital, A. Hayashi, and K. Togashi, Roche Diagnostics K.K.

References

  1. 1. Liebman HA, Furie BC, Tong MJ, Blanchard RA, Lo KJ, Lee SD, et al. Des-gamma-carboxy (abnormal) prothrombin as a serum marker of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1984;310(22):1427–31. pmid:6201741.
  2. 2. Bertino G, Ardiri AM, Boemi PM, Ierna D, Interlandi D, Caruso L, et al. A study about mechanisms of des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin’s production in hepatocellular carcinoma. Panminerva Med. 2008;50(3):221–6. pmid:18927526.
  3. 3. Bertino G, Ardiri AM, Calvagno GS, Bertino N, Boemi PM. Prognostic and diagnostic value of des-γ-carboxy prothrombin in liver cancer. Drug News Perspect. 2010;23(8):498–508. pmid:21031166.
  4. 4. Marrero JA, Su GL, Wei W, Emick D, Conjeevaram HS, Fontana RJ, et al. Des-gamma carboxyprothrombin can differentiate hepatocellular carcinoma from nonmalignant chronic liver disease in american patients. Hepatology. 2003;37(5):1114–21. pmid:12717392.
  5. 5. Kim JM, Hyuck C, Kwon D, Joh JW, Lee JH, Paik SW, et al. Protein induced by vitamin K antagonist-II (PIVKA-II) is a reliable prognostic factor in small hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg. 2013;37(6):1371–8. pmid:23443153.
  6. 6. Volk ML, Hernandez JC, Su GL, Lok AS, Marrero JA. Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma may impair the performance of biomarkers: a comparison of AFP, DCP, and AFP-L3. Cancer Biomark. 2007;3(2):79–87. pmid:17522429.
  7. 7. Saitta C, Raffa G, Alibrandi A, Brancatelli S, Lombardo D, Tripodi G, et al. PIVKA-II is a useful tool for diagnostic characterization of ultrasound-detected liver nodules in cirrhotic patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(26):e7266. pmid:28658121; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5500043.
  8. 8. Yu R, Tan Z, Xiang X, Dan Y, Deng G. Effectiveness of PIVKA-II in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma based on real-world clinical data. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):608. Epub 20170901. pmid:28863782; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5580438.
  9. 9. Best J, Bechmann LP, Sowa JP, Sydor S, Dechêne A, Pflanz K, et al. GALAD Score Detects Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma in an International Cohort of Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(3):728–35.e4. Epub 20191108. pmid:31712073.
  10. 10. Park H, Park JY. Clinical significance of AFP and PIVKA-II responses for monitoring treatment outcomes and predicting prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:310427. Epub 20131229. pmid:24455683; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3885148.
  11. 11. Inagaki Y, Tang W, Makuuchi M, Hasegawa K, Sugawara Y, Kokudo N. Clinical and molecular insights into the hepatocellular carcinoma tumour marker des-γ-carboxyprothrombin. Liver Int. 2011;31(1):22–35. Epub 20100927. pmid:20874725.
  12. 12. Koike Y, Shiratori Y, Sato S, Obi S, Teratani T, Imamura M, et al. 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(3):561–9. pmid:11169939.
  13. 13. Poté N, Cauchy F, Albuquerque M, Voitot H, Belghiti J, Castera L, et al. Performance of PIVKA-II for early hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis and prediction of microvascular invasion. J Hepatol. 2015;62(4):848–54. Epub 20141111. pmid:25450201.
  14. 14. Li T, Yu Y, Liu J, Tian X, Kong M, Wu L, et al. PIVKA-II level is correlated to development of portal vein tumor thrombus in patients with HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Infect Agent Cancer. 2019;14:13. Epub 20190514. pmid:31114628; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6515665.
  15. 15. Iwadou S, Nouso K, Kuwaki K, Kobayashi Y, Nakamura S, Tanaka H, et al. Time-dependent analysis of predisposing factors for the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2010;30(7):1027–32. Epub 20100518. pmid:20492506.
  16. 16. Ryu T, Takami Y, Wada Y, Tateishi M, Matsushima H, Mikagi K, et al. Double- and Triple-Positive Tumor Markers Predict Early Recurrence and Poor Survival in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma within the Milan Criteria and Child-Pugh Class A. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(6):957–66. Epub 20170315. pmid:28299619.
  17. 17. Arai T, Kobayashi A, Ohya A, Takahashi M, Yokoyama T, Shimizu A, et al. Assessment of treatment outcomes based on tumor marker trends in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing trans-catheter arterial chemo-embolization. Int J Clin Oncol. 2014;19(5):871–9. Epub 20131112. pmid:24218280.
  18. 18. Hiraoka A, Ishimaru Y, Kawasaki H, Aibiki T, Okudaira T, Toshimori A, et al. Tumor Markers AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Refractory to Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization. Oncology. 2015;89(3):167–74. Epub 20150512. pmid:25999038.
  19. 19. Lim TS, Rhee H, Kim GM, Kim SU, Kim BK, Park JY, et al. Alpha-Fetoprotein, Des-Gamma-Carboxy Prothrombin, and Modified RECIST Response as Predictors of Survival after Transarterial Radioembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30(8):1194–200.e1. Epub 20190622. pmid:31235408.
  20. 20. Saeki I, Yamasaki T, Tanabe N, Iwamoto T, Matsumoto T, Urata Y, et al. A new therapeutic assessment score for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126649. Epub 20150520. pmid:25992784; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4439162.
  21. 21. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378–90. Epub 2008/07/25. pmid:18650514.
  22. 22. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, Galle PR, Ducreux M, Kim TY, et al. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1894–905. Epub 2020/05/14. pmid:32402160.
  23. 23. Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, Han KH, Ikeda K, Piscaglia F, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10126):1163–73. Epub 2018/02/13. pmid:29433850.
  24. 24. Bruix J, Qin S, Merle P, Granito A, Huang YH, Bodoky G, et al. Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):56–66. Epub 2016/12/10. pmid:27932229.
  25. 25. Abou-Alfa GK, Meyer T, Cheng AL, El-Khoueiry AB, Rimassa L, Ryoo BY, et al. Cabozantinib in Patients with Advanced and Progressing Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):54–63. pmid:29972759; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7523244.
  26. 26. Zhu AX, Kang YK, Yen CJ, Finn RS, Galle PR, Llovet JM, et al. Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased alpha-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):282–96. Epub 2019/01/23. pmid:30665869.
  27. 27. Johnson PJ, Berhane S, Kagebayashi C, Satomura S, Teng M, Reeves HL, et al. Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):550–8. Epub 2014/12/17. pmid:25512453; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4322258.
  28. 28. Hiraoka A, Kumada T, Tsuji K, Takaguchi K, Itobayashi E, Kariyama K, et al. Validation of Modified ALBI Grade for More Detailed Assessment of Hepatic Function in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: A Multicenter Analysis. Liver Cancer. 2019;8(2):121–9. Epub 2019/04/26. pmid:31019902; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6465715.
  29. 29. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47. Epub 2008/12/23. pmid:19097774.
  30. 30. Kaneko S, Tsuchiya K, Kurosaki M, Kirino S, Inada K, Yamashita K, et al. Three criteria for radiological response on survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib. Hepatol Res. 2020;50(1):137–43. Epub 2019/07/28. pmid:31349377.
  31. 31. Kaneko S, Tsuchiya K, Yasui Y, Inada K, Kirino S, Yamashita K, et al. Early radiological response evaluation with response evaluation criteria in solid tumors 1.1 stratifies survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with lenvatinib. JGH Open. 2020;4(6):1183–90. Epub 20201016. pmid:33319054; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7731835.
  32. 32. Zhang YS, Chu JH, Cui SX, Song ZY, Qu XJ. Des-γ-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) as a potential autologous growth factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2014;34(3):903–15. Epub 20140821. pmid:25200250.
  33. 33. Sun X, Mei J, Lin W, Yang Z, Peng W, Chen J, et al. Reductions in AFP and PIVKA-II can predict the efficiency of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in HCC patients. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):775. Epub 20210704. pmid:34218801; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8254996.
  34. 34. Kodama K, Kawaoka T, Namba M, Uchikawa S, Ohya K, Morio K, et al. Correlation between Early Tumor Marker Response and Imaging Response in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Lenvatinib. Oncology. 2019;97(2):75–81. Epub 2019/06/27. pmid:31242488.
  35. 35. Murata K, Suzuki H, Okano H, Oyamada T, Yasuda Y, Sakamoto A. Hypoxia-induced des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin production in hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Oncol. 2010;36(1):161–70. pmid:19956845.
  36. 36. Hiraoka A, Kumada T, Tada T, Hirooka M, Kariyama K, Tani J, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Early clinical experience. Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2021:e1464. Epub 20210611. pmid:34114752.
  37. 37. Sho T, Suda G, Ogawa K, Kimura M, Kubo A, Tokuchi Y, et al. Early response and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in patients who do not meet IMbrave150 eligibility criteria. Hepatol Res. 2021. Epub pmid:20210710.
  38. 38. Llovet JM, Lencioni R. mRECIST for HCC: Performance and novel refinements. J Hepatol. 2020;72(2):288–306. Epub 2020/01/20. pmid:31954493.