Utility of Alpha-Fetoprotein and Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Patients with Hepatocellular Liver Cancer

Figures & data

Table 1 Correlation Between AFP and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Primary Liver Cancer Cases

Item	AFP positive (n = 300)	AFP negative (n = 101)	χ^2/t	P value
Sex (n)			0.148	0.700
Male	167	54
Female	133	47
Age (years, x±s)	45.38±5.42	46.78±5.55	0.861	0.673
Tumor diameter (cm, x±s)	5.12±1.23	3.31±1.36	4.561	<0.001
Family history (n)	78	21	1.102	0.294
Alcohol consumption (n)	201	77	30.32	0.082
Jaundice (n)	123	41	0.005	0.943
Hepatic ascites (n)	135	45	0.006	0.938
Cirrhosis (n)	156	48	0.480	0.488
Portal vein tumor thrombosis (n)	114	41	0.214	0.643
ALT (U/L, x±s)	53.51±2.33	48.41±3.24	3.452	0.033
Child-Pugh classification (cases)			15.340	<0.001
A	57	32
B	154	57
C	89	12
Viral hepatitis (n)	145	13	39.797	<0.001
Tumor type			0.657	0.720
	293	98
	4	1
	3	2
HCC staging			1.733	0.188
Early phase	133	33
Middle and late stage	200	68

Table 2 Diagnostic Value of AFP and Ultrasound for Primary Liver Cancer

Variable			Cutoff	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV	NPV
Ultrasound	0.722	0.689~0.756	3.12 cm	64.01	73.82	71.23	64.84
AFP	0.745	0.723~0.788	368.87 ng/mL	31.32	90.05	75.84	56.77
Ultrasound + AFP	0.896	0.876~0.923	–	67.65	91.22	85.46	59.49

Figure 1 Effect of AFP and ultrasound on OS (A) OS curves of L-AFP and H-AFP groups. (B) OS curves of LTD and HTD groups.

Figure 2 Effect of AFP and ultrasound on PFS (A) PFS curves of L-AFP and H-AFP groups. (B) PFS curves of LTD and HTD groups.