Figures
Abstract
Background
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with higher incidence and poorer prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The influence of DM on patient survival in different HCC stages is not known.
Methods
A prospective dataset of 3,182 HCC patients was collected between 2002 and 2014. Patients were divided into three groups according to BCLC stages (BCLC stage 0 and stage A, BCLC stage B, BCLC stage C and stage D). We compared the cumulative survival rate of diabetic and non-diabetic patients in different BCLC groups. The correlation between DM and overall survival was also analyzed by multivariate Cox regression model within each group.
Results
DM is present in 25.2% of all patients. Diabetic patients had lower cumulative survival in BCLC stage 0 plus BCLC stage A group (log rank p<0.001), and BCLC stage B group (log rank p = 0.012), but not in BCLC stage C plus BCLC stage D group (log rank p = 0.132). Statistically significant differences in overall survival are found between diabetic and non-diabetic patients in BCLC stage 0 plus stage A group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.93, p = 0.013), and BCLC stage B (adjusted HR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.24–2.51, p = 0.002). In contrast, the survival difference is not seen in BCLC stage C plus stage D group (adjusted HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.90–1.30, p = 0.387).
Citation: Su Y-W, Liu P-H, Hsu C-Y, Lee Y-H, Hsia C-Y, Ho S-Y, et al. (2017) Prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus on hepatocellular carcinoma: Special emphasis from the BCLC perspective. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0174333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174333
Editor: Sheng-Nan Lu, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Kaohsiung Branch, TAIWAN
Received: December 28, 2016; Accepted: March 7, 2017; Published: March 23, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Su 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: The restrictions set by the Institutional Review Board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital prohibit the authors from making the minimal data set publicly available. For data access, please contact the Director of the IRB of Taipei Veterans General Hospital at d-mre@vghtpe.gov.tw.
Funding: This study was supported by the grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital (V105C-009, VN106-11), Taipei, Taiwan. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Abbreviations: AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; ADA, American Diabetes Association; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; BCLC, Barcelona Clínic Liver Cancer; CI, confidence interval; CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification; DM, diabetes mellitus; EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HR, hazard ratio; IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor-1; INR, international normalized ratio; IRS-1, insulin receptor subtrate-1; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease
Introduction
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth common neoplasm in men and the seventh in women. It contributed to 745,000 deaths in year 2012 and was the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.[1] Well-established risk factors for HCC include chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, aflatoxin B1, and alcohol consumption.[2, 3] The pathogenic and prognostic roles of metabolic factors, such as diabetes mellitus (DM), metabolic syndrome, or obesity, had also been studied.[4–6] Epidemiologic studies have disclosed association between presence of DM and higher HCC incidence, suggesting that DM is an independent risk factor for development of HCC.[7–10]
In addition to its role in pathogenesis, DM may also be an important predictor of prognosis.[11, 12] Previous studies analyzing the relation between DM and HCC outcomes focused mainly on resectable or potentially curable diseases. However, the results were inconsistent.[13–18] DM seems to worsen HCC prognosis in some subgroups to a greater extent. Toyoda et al found that the presence of DM led to poorer prognosis only in patients with treatable diseases, and those with tumor size ≤ 3 cm in greatest dimension.[19] Wang et al reported lower overall and disease-free survival in DM patients with cirrhosis and HCC, but not in their non-cirrhotic counterparts.[20]
The Barcelona Clínic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification is one of the most widely adapted classification systems for HCC. The BCLC system incorporates multiple factors, including tumor burden, liver functional reserve and performance status. With its ability to predict prognosis and guide treatment algorithm, the BCLC staging system is endorsed by the European Association for the Study of Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) HCC management guidelines. BCLC system stratifies patients into several distinct prognostic groups. The association and prognostic impact of DM on HCC patients with different cancer stages remain unclear. In this study, we aim to explore the prognostic role of DM in different BCLC stages.
Methods
Patients
We have prospectively enrolled and retrospectively analyzed newly diagnosed HCC patients admitted to Taipei Veterans General Hospital during 2002 to 2014. Baseline characteristics, including underlying etiologies for HCC, biochemistry profile, tumor extent, vascular invasion, severity of cirrhosis, performance status, and diagnosis of DM were recorded. Patient follow-up was arranged every 3–6 months until death or dropout from the program. Survival was defined from the date of diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Those receiving liver transplantation were censored at the date of transplantation. The study complies with the standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and current ethical guidelines and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Taipei Veterans General Hospital (IRB protocol number 2014-03-007AC). Waiver of consent was obtained, and patient records/information was anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis.
Diagnosis and definitions
The diagnosis of HCC was established in accordance with EASL and AASLD HCC management guidelines.[21, 22] BCLC staging information was obtained at the time of diagnosis. We defined vascular invasion as radiological evidence of tumor invasion to intrahepatic vasculatures, portal trunk or abdominal great vessels. DM was defined as a fasting plasma glucose of 126 mg/dl or greater on at least two separate occasions, plasma glucose of 200 mg/dl or greater 2 hours after a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test, a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) level > 6.5% for once, or any prescription of hypoglycemic agents.[23]
Treatments
Once diagnosis was confirmed, patient data were reviewed at multi-disciplinary HCC board of Taipei Veterans General Hospital for treatment planning. We provided comprehensive information regarding risks and benefits of each treatment to patients. The final treatment modality taken was decided by shared-decision making between physicians and patients. Written informed consent was obtained prior to all management. Invasive therapies, including radiofrequency ablation, surgical resection, and transarterial chemoembolization were performed through standard procedures as previously reported.[24–26]
Statistics
The cumulative survival rates of diabetic and non-diabetic patients among different BCLC stages were examined by the Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed for hazard ratio evaluation. Prognostic factors that are probably associated with overall survival, including age, sex, severity and etiology of chronic liver diseases, biochemical laboratory parameters and tumoral status were included in the univariate survival analysis. Factors significant in the univariate analysis (P < 0.1) were introduced into the multivariate Cox model to determine independent predictors of prognosis. The proportional hazard assumption was assessed graphically before being analyzed with Cox model. We used two-tailed χ2 test to compare categorical data, and Mann-Whitney U test to evaluate continuous variables. Interaction between DM and other predictors were assessed using likelihood ratio tests comparing the final model and the final model with the interaction terms. Statistical analyses were conducted with IBM SPSS version 21 (IBM, NY) and SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, NC). Statistical significance was set as P value less than 0.05 in a two-tailed test.
Results
Patient characteristics
The median age of the study patients is 65 years old. The median follow-up duration is 17 months for the entire cohort, being 19 months for non-diabetic and 15 months for diabetic patients. Among the 3,182 participants, 1001 (31.5%) were early HCC, 503 (15.8%) were intermediate HCC, 1282 (40.3%) were advanced HCC, while 396 patients (12.4%) had terminal HCC at the time of diagnosis. Prevalence of DM was 25.2% as a whole. The respective DM prevalence in BCLC very early, early, intermediate, advanced, and terminal stages were 22.0%, 24.1%, 21.9%, 27.2%, and 27.1%, showing no statistically significant difference (Table 1; p = 0.081). However, a significant trend toward increasing prevalence of DM in more advanced BCLC stages were noted (p for trend = 0.048, Fig 1).
A trend toward increasing DM prevalence in more advanced BCLC stages is seen at a marginal significance (p for trend = 0.048).
Age, sex, performance status, existence of vascular invasion, HBV or HCV infection, alcoholism, presence of ascites, history of variceal bleeding showed significant differences between different BCLC stages at baseline. Parameters with gradual increment from BCLC stage 0 to stage D were serum bilirubin (p< 0.001), international normalized ratio (INR) (p< 0.001), serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level (p< 0.001), platelet count (p< 0.001), and total tumor volume (p< 0.001). On the contrary, some parameters decreased in graded manner, including serum albumin (p< 0.001), serum sodium (p< 0.001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, p< 0.001).
Survival analysis
As a whole, diabetic HCC patients had significantly lower overall survival compared with non-diabetic patients (p = 0.017, Fig 2A). In subgroup analysis, diabetic patients also had decreased overall survival in very early/early and intermediate HCC (p<0.001 and 0.012, respectively, Fig 2B & 2C). The survival was similar between diabetic and non-diabetic patients in advanced and terminal HCC (p = 0.132, Fig 2D).
Differences in survival between diabetic and non-diabetic patients are significant in the whole cohort (p = 0.017, panel A), BCLC stage 0 and stage A (p< 0.001, panel B), and BCLC stage B (p = 0.012, panel C), but not in BCLC stage C and stage D (p = 0.132, panel D).
Risk factor analysis
All patients.
Univariate survival analysis show that DM, age, gender, HBV, alcoholism, albumin, bilirubin, INR, Na, AFP, eGFR, variceal bleeding, total tumor volume, vascular invasion, presence of ascites, and platelet count were significant predictors for survival in HCC patients (Table 2, all p< 0.05). Factors significant in the univariate analysis were introduced into the multivariate Cox model. MELD score and CTP class were not included in the final model because of they contain potentially confounding predictors, such as albumin and bilirubin. After adjustment, DM showed no effect on overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95–1.25; p = 0.199).
BCLC stage 0 and stage A.
DM, age, HBV, HCV, albumin, bilirubin, INR, AFP, eGFR, and platelet count showed significant impact on patient survival (Table 3, p< 0.05). After adjusting in the multivariate model, presence of DM (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08–1.93, p = 0.013), higher serum bilirubin (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07–1.52, p = 0.008), higher serum AFP (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.20–1.48, p< 0.001), lower serum albumin (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.37–2.38, p<0.001), and lower eGFR (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04–1.19, p = 0.001), lower platelet count (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.0–1.05, p = 0.029) were confirmed as independent predictors of a decreased survival rate. We found no interaction between DM and these independent predictors (all p > 0.05).
BCLC stage B.
In univariate survival analysis for BCLC stage B subgroup, DM, albumin, total tumor volume were associated with survival (Table 4, p< 0.05). The Cox multivariate analysis revealed DM (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.24–2.51, p = 0.002), serum albumin (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27–2.22, p< 0.001), and total tumor volume (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.19–1.93, p = 0.001) as independent predictors of a poor outcome. There were no interaction between DM and these independent predictors of poor outcome (all p > 0.05).
BCLC stage C and stage D.
Variables showing hazardous effects for HCC survival were bilirubin (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.09–1.12; p<0.001), INR (HR 3.13; 95% CI 2.46–3.97; p< 0.001), serum AFP (HR 1.01; 95% CI 1.01–1.01 p< 0.001), total tumor volume (HR per 1,000ml increment 1.33; 95% CI 1.26–1.40; p< 0.001), variceal bleeding (HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.04–1.83; p = 0.024), vascular invasion (HR 2.59; 95% CI 2.24–3.00; p< 0.001), ascites (HR 2.26; 95% CI 1.95–2.61; p< 0.001), and platelet count (HR per 10,000/m3 increment: 1.02; 95% CI 1.02–1.03; p< 0.001). DM does not appear to be a predictive variable for survival in this group of patients (crude HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75–1.04; p = 0.136). Significant predictors for decreased survival rate in multivariate Cox model were serum albumin (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.47–1.89; p< 0.001) and bilirubin (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.04–1.08; p< 0.001), plasma sodium (HR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.04; p = 0.006), serum AFP (HR per 10,000 ng/ml increment 1.01; 95% CI 1.00–1.01; p< 0.001), eGFR (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05; p = 0.003), total tumor volume (HR per 1,000 ml increment 1.12; 95% CI 1.04–1.20; p = 0.002), vascular invasion (HR 2.34; 95% CI 1.99–2.74; p< 0.001), ascites (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.39–1.92; p< 0.001), and platelet count (HR per 10,000/mm3 increment 1.01; 95% CI 1.01–1.02; p< 0.001; Table 5).
Discussion
In this longitudinally followed-up study from a large patient cohort, notably, a quarter of HCC patients were diabetic. We demonstrate a trend toward increasing prevalence of DM in HCC patients with higher BCLC stages. In addition, DM may differentially affect overall survival in HCC patients with BCLC stage 0, stage A, and stage B subgroups, but not in those with BCLC stage C and D groups.
Relations between DM and HCC prognosis have been studied extensively but show discrepant results. It has been noticed in several epidemiologic studies that the predictive value of DM on HCC prognosis was limited to specific patient subgroups. Wang et al. reported a meta-analysis including 21 studies with total 9,767 HCC patients, and showed that DM is an independent predictor for decreased overall survival (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.27–1.91; p = 0.001) and disease-free survival (HR 2.15; 95% CI 1.75–2.63; p = 0.001).[12] However, subgroup analyses in that study further disclosed that the effect was only seen in patients receiving hepatic resection (HR 1.91; 95% CI 1.21–3.00; p = 0.005), but not in subjects treated with other modalities.
Whether differences exist in tumors with diverse baseline characteristics is less well established. Our group previously conducted an analysis comparing how DM influenced cumulative survival in patients with small (defined as ≤ 5 cm) and large (> 5 cm) hepatic tumors. We found that non-diabetic patients had significantly better survival after surgical resection compared to diabetic patients when the tumors are small. In contrast, there was no significant difference in survival between DM and non-DM individuals when tumor sizes were large at presentation.[27]
HCC is a highly heterogeneous disease entity, and the size of tumor size does not necessarily correlate well with disease severity, tumor stage, or prognosis. The BCLC classification system involves not only tumor size, but also performance status and liver functional reserve. Thus it may serve as a better disease indicator. In the current study, we divided patients into a total of three subgroups according to their BCLC staging. Our aim is to more precisely evaluate how the presence of DM changes the prognosis of HCC under different disease entities. We found a poor overall survival in diabetic patients with early BCLC stages but not in those with advanced diseases. This phenomenon could be explained by the hepatocarcinogenesis effect of insulin. In type 2 diabetic patients, increased insulin resistance and resulting hyperinsulinemia might upregulate the production of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and insulin receptor subtrate-1 (IRS-1). Elevating IGF-1 stimulates cell proliferation and inhibits apoptosis, thereby inducing carcinogenesis.[28] Consequently, patients with DM may suffer from accelerating tumor growth and poorer survival. However, in chronic and advanced liver diseases, especially in fibrotic liver, insulin resistance increased.[29–32] We consider that in BCLC stage C and stage D populations, the underlying liver disease alone causes insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia that resemble diabetes status. Therefore, whether or not patients have true clinical diabetes may not significantly influence the prognosis. This assumption was further supported by our demographic data showing that the CTP class was more advanced in higher BCLC stages, representing more severe cirrhosis. In the meanwhile, the same hypothesis could also explain the gradual increasing trend of DM prevalence from BCLC stage 0 to stage D as observed in our cohort, which stems from progressively worsening insulin resistance.
DM is known to cause multi-system complications. Diabetic patients with early stage HCC usually have a better survival, which allows diabetic complications and diabetes-associated death to develop. Thus the increased mortality in diabetic group might come from diabetic complications instead of cancer burden. Alternatively, in later stages, treatment for HCC is greatly limited. According to the suggestions from the AASLD guideline, patients with BCLC stage C disease can only be treated with sorafenib, and stage D patients are less likely to tolerate any treatment except for palliative care. There is a high possibility that patients die before significant diabetic complications take place.
The study has a few limitations. This is a single-center study and the results may not be generalizable to other geographical areas. With more than half of the patients having evidence of HBV infection, our data require validation from other study groups. Secondly, as a tertiary center, referral bias cannot be avoided completely. Thirdly, our primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We could not evaluate the association between DM and its potential morbidities, such as surgical complications and cardiovascular death. Lastly, our study lacks of the information about DM treatment. Recently, the protective effect of several classes of anti-diabetic agents in cancer development and progression, especially metformin and thiazolidinedione, has been emphasized.[33, 34] On the contrary, insulin analogue seems to have mitogenic effects.[35] Therefore, choice of glucose lowering drugs may have its own role in affecting the outcome of HCC patients.
In conclusion, DM is highly prevalent among patients with HCC across different cancer stages. DM worsens overall survival in these patients with early BCLC stages from stage 0 to B. However. For patients with stage C and stage D, the long-term survival is not significantly influenced by the presence of DM.
Author Contributions
- Conceptualization: P-HL C-YH Y-HL.
- Data curation: Y-WS C-YH S-YH M-CH.
- Formal analysis: Y-WS P-HL T-IH.
- Funding acquisition: T-IH.
- Investigation: Y-WS P-HL T-IH.
- Methodology: C-YH C-YH.
- Project administration: M-CH H-SC.
- Software: H-SC T-IH.
- Supervision: M-CH H-SC T-IH.
- Validation: P-HL C-YH.
- Visualization: Y-WS P-HL.
- Writing – original draft: Y-WS P-HL.
- Writing – review & editing: M-CH H-SC T-IH.
References
- 1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86. pmid:25220842
- 2. Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2012;379(9822):1245–55. pmid:22353262
- 3. Mittal S, El-Serag HB. Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: consider the population. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47 Suppl:S2–6.
- 4. Raffetti E, Portolani N, Molfino S, Baiocchi GL, Limina RM, Caccamo G, et al. Role of aetiology, diabetes, tobacco smoking and hypertension in hepatocellular carcinoma survival. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(11):950–6. pmid:26276376
- 5. Jinjuvadia R, Patel S, Liangpunsakul S. The association between metabolic syndrome and hepatocellular carcinoma: systemic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48(2):172–7. pmid:24402120
- 6. Loria P, Lonardo A, Anania F. Liver and diabetes. A vicious circle. Hepatology research: the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology. 2013;43(1):51–64.
- 7. El-Serag HB, Tran T, Everhart JE. Diabetes increases the risk of chronic liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(2):460–8. pmid:14762783
- 8. Davila JA, Morgan RO, Shaib Y, McGlynn KA, El-Serag HB. Diabetes increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: a population based case control study. Gut. 2005;54(4):533–9. pmid:15753540
- 9. Ali Kamkar MM, Ahmad R, Alsmadi O, Behbehani K. Insight into the impact of diabetes mellitus on the increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: mini-review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2014;13:57. pmid:24918094
- 10. Ko WH, Chiu SY, Yang KC, Chen HH. Diabetes, hepatitis virus infection and hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-control study in hepatitis endemic area. Hepatology research: the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology. 2012;42(8):774–81.
- 11. Huo TI, Hsu CY, Huang YH, Hsia CY, Lin HC, Lee PC, et al. Diabetes mellitus as an independent prognostic predictor and its association with renal dysfunction in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2010;30(2):198–207. pmid:19849777
- 12. Wang YY, Huang S, Zhong JH, Ke Y, Guo Z, Liu JQ, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative hepatectomy. PloS one. 2014;9(12):e113858. pmid:25436613
- 13. Huo TI, Wu JC, Lui WY, Lee PC, Huang YH, Chau GY, et al. Diabetes mellitus is a recurrence-independent risk factor in patients with hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing resection. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;15(11):1203–8. pmid:14560154
- 14. Kawamura Y, Ikeda K, Arase Y, Yatsuji H, Sezaki H, Hosaka T, et al. Diabetes mellitus worsens the recurrence rate after potentially curative therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma associated with nonviral hepatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23(11):1739–46. pmid:18713301
- 15. Ting CT, Chen RC, Chen CC, Liu MH, Chu D, Kuo NW. Diabetes worsens the surgical outcomes in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2012;227(1):73–81. pmid:22688467
- 16. Ikeda Y, Shimada M, Hasegawa H, Gion T, Kajiyama K, Shirabe K, et al. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with diabetes mellitus after hepatic resection. Hepatology. 1998;27(6):1567–71. pmid:9620328
- 17. Feng YH, Lin CY, Huang WT, Wu CL, Fang JL, Tsao CJ. Diabetes mellitus impairs the response to intra-arterial chemotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Med Oncol. 2011;28(4):1080–8. pmid:20734163
- 18. Poon RT, Fan ST, Wong J. Does diabetes mellitus influence the perioperative outcome or long term prognosis after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma? Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(6):1480–8. pmid:12094870
- 19. Toyoda H, Kumada T, Nakano S, Takeda I, Sugiyama K, Kiriyama S, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;91(5):957–63. pmid:11251947
- 20. Wang YG, Wang P, Wang B, Fu ZJ, Zhao WJ, Yan SL. Diabetes mellitus and poorer prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one. 2014;9(5):e95485. pmid:24830459
- 21. Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver D. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011;53(3):1020–2. pmid:21374666
- 22. European Association For The Study Of The Liver, European Organisation For Research and Treatment of Cancer. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56(4):908–43. pmid:22424438
- 23. American Diabetes A. (2) Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38 Suppl:S8–S16.
- 24. Chau GY. Resection of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma: evolving strategies and emerging therapies to improve outcome. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(35):12473–84. pmid:25253947
- 25. Huang YH, Chen CH, Chang TT, Chen SC, Chiang JH, Lee HS, et al. The role of transcatheter arterial embolization for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a nationwide, multicentre study evaluated by cancer stage. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21(6):687–94. pmid:15771754
- 26. Liu PH, Hsu CY, Hsia CY, Lee YH, Huang YH, Chiou YY, et al. Surgical Resection Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma </ = 2 cm in a Propensity Score Model. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):538–45. pmid:25775062
- 27. Huo TI, Wu JC, Lui WY, Huang YH, Lee PC, Chiang JH, et al. Differential mechanism and prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(8):1479–87. pmid:15307864
- 28. Perumpail RB, Liu A, Wong RJ, Ahmed A, Harrison SA. Pathogenesis of hepatocarcinogenesis in non-cirrhotic nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: Potential mechanistic pathways. World J Hepatol. 2015;7(22):2384–8. pmid:26464753
- 29. Petta S, Camma C, Di Marco V, Macaluso FS, Maida M, Pizzolanti G, et al. Hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance are associated with severe fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis caused by HBV or HCV infection. Liver Int. 2011;31(4):507–15. pmid:21382161
- 30. Chu CJ, Hung TH, Hwang SJ, Wang YJ, Yang CF, Lin HC, et al. Association of insulin resistance with hepatic steatosis and progression of fibrosis in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008;55(88):2157–61. pmid:19260496
- 31. Kawaguchi T, Yoshida T, Harada M, Hisamoto T, Nagao Y, Ide T, et al. Hepatitis C virus down-regulates insulin receptor substrates 1 and 2 through up-regulation of suppressor of cytokine signaling 3. Am J Patho. 2004;165(5):1499–508.
- 32. Kawaguchi T, Taniguchi E, Itou M, Sakata M, Sumie S, Sata M. Insulin resistance and chronic liver disease. World J Hepatol. 2011;3(5):99–107. pmid:21731901
- 33. Lai SW, Chen PC, Liao KF, Muo CH, Lin CC, Sung FC. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in diabetic patients and risk reduction associated with anti-diabetic therapy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(1):46–52. pmid:22085817
- 34. Zhang ZJ, Zheng ZJ, Shi R, Su Q, Jiang Q, Kip KE. Metformin for liver cancer prevention in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(7):2347–53. pmid:22523334
- 35. Weinstein D, Simon M, Yehezkel E, Laron Z, Werner H. Insulin analogues display IGF-I-like mitogenic and anti-apoptotic activities in cultured cancer cells. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2009;25(1):41–9. pmid:19145584