Hepatitis C patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis are at high risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) even after sustained virological response (SVR). Several HCC risk scores have been developed but which one is most suitable for this population is unclear. In this study, we compared the prediction ability of the aMAP model, THRI model, PAGE‐B model and Models of HCV in a prospective hepatitis C cohort in order to propose better model(s) to clinical practice. Adult hepatitis C patients with baseline advanced fibrosis (141 cases), compensated cirrhosis (330 cases) and decompensated cirrhosis (80 cases) were included and followed up every 6 months for about 7 years or until HCC development. Demographic data, medical history and laboratory results were recorded. HCCs were diagnosed by radiography, AFP or liver histology. The median follow‐up period was 69.93(60.99–74.93) months, during which 53 (9.62%) patients developed HCC. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of aMAP, THRI, PAGE‐B and Models of HCV scores were 0.74, 0.72, 0.70 and 0.63 respectively. The predictive power of the aMAP model score was comparable to that of THRI, PAGE‐Band higher than that of Models of HCV (p < 0.05). Dividing patients into non‐high‐risk and high‐risk groups, the cumulative incidence rates of HCC based on aMAP, THRI, PAGE‐B and Models of HCV was 5.57% vs. 24.17%, 1.10% vs. 13.90%, 5.80% vs. 15.90% and 6.41% vs. 13.81% (all p < 0.05). The AUC of the four models were all below 0.7 in male while all were higher than 0.7 in female. The performance of all the models was not influenced by fibrosis stage. aMAP, THRI model and PAGE‐B model were all performed well while THRI model and PAGE‐B model were easier to calculate. There was no need to select score according to fibrosis stage but should be caution when explain the results in male patients.
What Is Known and Objective. The primary cause of trabeculectomy failure in glaucoma surgery is the imperfect formation of the filter bubble, which blocks the filtration effect. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects and safety of mitomycin C (MMC) or no antimetabolite in trabeculectomies cases that require needling revision. Methods. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE to identify randomized trials published between the time the databases were built and May 31, 2022. To compare the effectiveness and safety of mitomycin with or without mitomycin in trabeculectomy, intraocular pressure (IOP), the surgical failure rate, and functional follicle formation were used as efficacy indicators, and the occurrence of postoperative complications was used as a safety indicator. Meta-analyses were performed for comparisons. Results and Discussion. After trabeculectomy, MMC was significantly better than a placebo at lowering postoperative IOP (MD = −11.31 mmHg, 95% CI −19.73 to −2.88 mmHg). MMC outperformed the control group in terms of filtering blebs formation (relative risk (RR) = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.27). The surgical failure rate was significantly lower with MMC compared to placebo (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.58). No significant difference was observed between MMC and placebo in terms of hypotony, anterior chamber bleeding, filter bubble leakage, and endophthalmitis, apart from the shallow anterior chamber (RR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.25). What Is New and Conclusion. The use of MMC in glaucoma trabeculectomy can increase the success rate of the procedure and provide significant patient benefits. However, it is important to be extremely careful and aware of complications such as shallow anterior chambers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.