Comparative prognostic performance of staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma: Evidence from a Vietnamese cohort study

Table 6 Comparison of prognostic accuracy of different scoring systems across treatment modalities at 12 months and 36 months after initial treatment

Modality	Score	Time in months	AUC	χ2	LRT P value	AIC	Mean error	90% quantile
TACE	BCLC	12	0.8000	3.38	0.066	26.79	0.063	0.100
		36	0.7849	53.57	< 0.001	214.12	0.321	0.678
	HKLC_9	12	0.9078	3.45	0.063	26.72	0.061	0.047
		36	0.7702	44.33	< 0.001	223.36	0.343	0.702
	HKLC_5	12	0.9078	4.48	0.034	25.69	0.060	0.046
		36	0.7624	41.39	< 0.001	226.30	0.349	0.730
RFA	BCLC	12	0.8000	3.38	0.066	26.79	0.063	0.100
		36	0.7748	10.51	0.001	34.86	0.163	0.508
	HKLC_9	12	0.9078	3.45	0.063	26.72	0.061	0.047
		36	0.8214	6.15	0.013	39.22	0.192	0.632
	HKLC_5	12	0.9078	4.48	0.034	25.69	0.060	0.046
		36	0.8214	4.70	0.006	37.67	0.184	0.688
Surgery	BCLC	12	0.9140	16.44	< 0.001	27.05	0.078	0.238
		36	0.7882	9.69	0.002	36.04	0.222	0.565
	HKLC_9	12	0.8280	4.91	0.027	38.58	0.091	0.153
		36	0.7465	6.20	0.013	39.52	0.249	0.721
	HKLC_5	12	0.8120	4.63	0.031	38.86	0.091	0.183
		36	0.7292	4.50	0.034	41.23	0.264	0.758

RFA: Radiofrequency ablation; TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization; AUC: Area under the curve; AIC: Akaike information criterion; LRT: Likelihood ratio test; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; HKLC: Hong Kong Liver Cancer.