Reasearch Awards nomination

Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Cancer and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Prognostic value of α-fetoprotein and des-γ-carboxy prothrombin responses in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial chemoembolization

Yong Kang Lee1, Seung Up Kim134, Do Young Kim134, Sang Hoon Ahn1345, Kwang Hun Lee234, Do Yun Lee234, Kwang-Hyub Han1345, Chae Yoon Chon134 and Jun Yong Park134*

  • * Corresponding author: Jun Yong Park DRPJY@yuhs.ac

  • † Equal contributors

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemun–gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea

2 Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

3 Liver Cancer Special Clinic, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

4 Liver Cirrhosis Clinical Research Center, Seoul, Korea

5 Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science, Seoul, Korea

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Cancer 2013, 13:5  doi:10.1186/1471-2407-13-5

Published: 3 January 2013

Additional files

Additional file 1:

Table S1. Independent predictors between cTM responder with Radiologic non-responder ( n = 8 ) and cTM non-responder with radiologic responder ( n = 12 ). Figure S1. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves of TM responder with radiologic non-responder and TM non-responder with radiologic non-responder. Both PFS and OS were not significantly different between TM responder with radiologic non-responder and TM non-responder with radiologic non-responder (5.1 vs. 5.1 months; log rank test, P=0.828 for PFS (A) and 33.8 vs. 7.5 months; log rank test, P=0.354 for OS (B)). Figure S2. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves of cTM responder with radiologic responder and cTM non-responder with radiologic non-responder. PFS was similar between cTM responder with radiologic responder and cTM non-responder with radiologic non-responder (19.0 vs. 6.2 months; log rank test, P=0.065 for PFS (A)) whereas OS were significantly better in cTM responder with radiologic responder than cTM non-responder with radiologic non-responder (39.2 vs. 12.8 months; log rank test, P=0.031 for OS (B)).

Format: DOCX Size: 244KB Download file

Open Data