0 151

Cited 0 times in

Entecavir versus tenofovir on the recurrence of hepatitis B-related HCC after liver transplantation: A multicenter observational study

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author김덕기-
dc.contributor.author김명수-
dc.contributor.author이재근-
dc.contributor.author주동진-
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-28T03:28:10Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-28T03:28:10Z-
dc.date.issued2023-12-
dc.identifier.issn1527-6465-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/196820-
dc.description.abstractConsiderable controversy exists regarding the superiority of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) over entecavir (ETV) for reducing the risk of HCC. This study aimed to compare outcomes of ETV versus TDF after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with HBV-related HCC. We performed a multicenter observational study using data from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry. A total of 845 patients who underwent LT for HBV-related HCC were divided into 2 groups according to oral nucleos(t)ide analogue used for HBV prophylaxis post-LT: ETV group (n = 393) and TDF group (n = 452). HCC recurrence and overall death were compared in naïve and propensity score (PS)-weighted populations, and the likelihood of these outcomes according to the use of ETV or TDF were analyzed with various Cox models. At 1, 3, and 5 years, the ETV and TDF groups had similar HCC recurrence-free survival (90.7%, 85.6%, and 84.1% vs. 90.9%, 84.6%, and 84.2%, respectively, p = 0.98) and overall survival (98.4%, 94.7%, and 93.5% vs. 99.3%, 95.8%, and 94.9%, respectively, p = 0.48). The propensity score-weighted population showed similar results. In Cox models involving covariates adjustment, propensity score-weighting, competing risk regression, and time-dependent covariates adjustment, both groups showed a similar risk of HCC recurrence and overall death. In subgroup analyses stratified according to HCC burden (Milan criteria, Up-to-7 criteria, French alpha-fetoprotein risk score), pretransplantation locoregional therapy, and salvage LT, neither ETV nor TDF was superior. In conclusion, ETV and TDF showed mutual noninferiority for HCC outcomes when used for HBV prophylaxis after LT.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherWiley-
dc.relation.isPartOfLIVER TRANSPLANTATION-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHAntiviral Agents / therapeutic use-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular* / epidemiology-
dc.subject.MESHHepatitis B virus-
dc.subject.MESHHepatitis B* / complications-
dc.subject.MESHHepatitis B* / diagnosis-
dc.subject.MESHHepatitis B* / drug therapy-
dc.subject.MESHHepatitis B, Chronic* / complications-
dc.subject.MESHHepatitis B, Chronic* / diagnosis-
dc.subject.MESHHepatitis B, Chronic* / drug therapy-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms* / epidemiology-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Transplantation* / adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHTenofovir / therapeutic use-
dc.subject.MESHTreatment Outcome-
dc.titleEntecavir versus tenofovir on the recurrence of hepatitis B-related HCC after liver transplantation: A multicenter observational study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Surgery (외과학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDeok-Gie Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYoungRok Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJinsoo Rhu-
dc.contributor.googleauthorShin Hwang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYoung Kyoung You-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDong-Sik Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYang Won Nah-
dc.contributor.googleauthorBong-Wan Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJai Young Cho-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKoo Jeong Kang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJae Do Yang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDonglak Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDong Jin Joo-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMyoung Soo Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJe Ho Ryu-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJae Geun Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKorean Organ Transplantation Registry Study Group-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/lvt.0000000000000227-
dc.contributor.localIdA05303-
dc.contributor.localIdA00424-
dc.contributor.localIdA03068-
dc.contributor.localIdA03948-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ02172-
dc.identifier.eissn1527-6473-
dc.identifier.pmid37489922-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://journals.lww.com/lt/fulltext/2023/12000/entecavir_versus_tenofovir_on_the_recurrence_of.7.aspx-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Deok Gie-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김덕기-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김명수-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor이재근-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor주동진-
dc.citation.volume29-
dc.citation.number12-
dc.citation.startPage1272-
dc.citation.endPage1281-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationLIVER TRANSPLANTATION, Vol.29(12) : 1272-1281, 2023-12-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Surgery (외과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.