e. 20–100 ng/mL) in a setting of concomitantly elevated ALT, the serum AFP level should not be incorporated into clinical judgment because it is not reliably distinguished from the confounding factor of active liver inflammation. In this circumstance, detection of HCC should rely solely on imaging studies to avoid a false positive AFP result. In conclusion, serum AFP is still helpful in the detection CYC202 of HCC recurrence after RFA in AFP-producing HCC. Mildly elevated AFP values in the setting of concomitantly elevated ALT should be interpreted
as inconclusive, and should not be used for clinical judgment. The performance of AFP may achieve higher sensitivity and accuracy by adjusting the AFP criteria to serum ALT levels as proposed herein. The main limitations of our study include its retrospective design and a relatively small sample size. The ideal method for determination
of HCC recurrence and detection of small foci of emerging HCC is the explanted Navitoclax clinical trial liver. However, this level of proof is impractical and limited to patients who have undergone liver transplantation. In general practice, contrast-enhanced CT/MRI, as recommended by AASLD, is an accepted standard for monitoring HCC recurrence after RFA. However, small new foci of HCC below the detection resolution of current imaging technology may still produce AFP and cause elevation in serum AFP that would be interpreted as a false positive.[29] Therefore, to detect early HCC recurrence in this study, the interval growth on subsequent imaging follow-up was also used as an additional
criterion to identify small early HCC that was equivocal on prior studies. Another limitation was that in some of the true positive cases, serum AFP may become elevated as a result of liver inflammation that coexisted with HCC recurrence, regardless of whether or not the tumor produced AFP. Because there is some overlap between liver inflammation and HCC recurrence, this may confound the interpretation of AFP levels. “
“I read with great interest the article by Chen et al.,1 who confirmed the association of diabetes with liver neoplasms and found that the incidence of primary malignant neoplasms of the liver was significantly higher in patients with diabetes versus control subjects. Even though multiple factors should be responsible for the association 上海皓元医药股份有限公司 between diabetes and an increased risk of malignant neoplasms of the liver, I propose that vitamin D deficiency potentially links the two disorders for the following reasons. First, vitamin D levels have been found to be significantly lower in diabetic populations versus subjects without diabetes.2, 3 It has been reported that vitamin D deficiency predisposes individuals to type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes and may be involved in the pathogenesis of both forms of diabetes.3, 4 Second, vitamin D deficiency has been proposed to contribute to high risks for various types of cancers.