Monitoring quality of care in hepatocellular carcinoma: A modified Delphi consensus

Quality of care in hepatocellular carcinoma-A critical review

There is significant variation in HCC management across different centers with poor adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines as assessed in prior studies. In Australia, quality indicators (QIs) have recently been proposed by a multidisciplinary group of experts to help provide a framework to assess and monitor the quality of HCC care. In this review, we discuss the many areas where real-world practice deviates from evidence-based medicine, the role that QI sets play in addressing this gap, and the similarities and differences between Australian QIs and other leading treatment guidelines and QI sets from around the world. We focus on the utility of QI sets to identify opportunities for targeted improvement in the real-world clinical environment. We conclude with a discussion about the formation of a national clinical quality registry as a long-term measure to facilitate continual improvements in patient care within and across sites in order to optimize patient outcomes.

Initial Trans-Arterial Chemo-Embolisation (TACE) Is Associated with Similar Survival Outcomes as Compared to Upfront Percutaneous Ablation Allowing for Follow-Up Treatment in Those with Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) ≤ 3 cm: Results of a Real-World Propensity-Matched Multi-Centre Australian Cohort Study

Percutaneous ablation is recommended in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A patients with HCC ≤3 cm as a curative treatment modality alongside surgical resection and liver transplantation. However, trans-arterial chemo-embolisation (TACE) is commonly used in the real-world as an initial treatment in patients with single small HCC in contrast to widely accepted clinical practice guidelines which typically describe TACE as a treatment for intermediate-stage HCC. We performed this real-world propensity-matched multi-centre cohort study in patients with single HCC ≤ 3 cm to assess for differences in survival outcomes between those undergoing initial TACE and those receiving upfront ablation. Patients with a new diagnosis of BCLC 0/A HCC with a single tumour ≤3 cm first diagnosed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 who received initial TACE or ablation were included in the study. A total of 348 patients were included in the study, with 147 patients receiving initial TACE and 201 patients undergoing upfront ablation. After propensity score matching using key covariates, 230 patients were available for analysis with 115 in each group. There were no significant differences in overall survival (log-rank test p = 0.652) or liver-related survival (log-rank test p = 0.495) over a median follow-up of 43 months. While rates of CR were superior after ablation compared to TACE as a first treatment (74% vs. 56%, p < 0.004), there was no significant difference in CR rates when allowing for further subsequent treatments (86% vs. 80% p = 0.219). In those who achieved CR, recurrence-free survival and local recurrence-free survival were similar (log rank test p = 0.355 and p = 0.390, respectively). Our study provides valuable real-world evidence that TACE when offered with appropriate follow-up treatment is a reasonable initial management strategy in very early/early-stage HCC, with similar survival outcomes as compared to those managed with upfront ablation. Further work is needed to better define the role for TACE in BCLC 0/A HCC.

Different Patterns of Care and Survival Outcomes in Transplant-Centre Managed Patients with Early-Stage HCC: Real-World Data from an Australian Multi-Centre Cohort Study

The management of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is complex, with multiple treatment strategies available. There is a paucity of literature regarding variations in the patterns of care and outcomes between transplant and non-transplant centres. We conducted this real-world multi-centre cohort study in two liver cancer referral centres with an integrated liver transplant program and an additional eight non-transplant HCC referral centres across Australia to identify variation in patterns of care and key survival outcomes. Patients with stage Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 0/A HCC, first diagnosed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020, who were managed at a participating site, were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a history of prior HCC or if they received upfront liver transplantation. A total of 887 patients were included in the study, with 433 patients managed at a liver cancer centre with a transplant program (LTC) and 454 patients managed at a non-transplant centre (NTC). Management at an LTC did not significantly predict allocation to resection (adjusted OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.11, p = 0.148). However, in those not receiving resection, LTC and NTC patients were systematically managed differently, with LTC patients five times less likely to receive upfront ablation than NTC patients (adjusted OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.28, p < 0.001), even after adjusting for tumour burden, as well as for age, gender, liver disease aetiology, liver disease severity, and medical comorbidities. LTCs exhibited significantly higher proportions of patients undergoing TACE for every tumour burden category, including those with a single tumour measuring 2 cm or less (p < 0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, management at a transplant centre was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98, p = 0.036), and competing-risk regression analysis, considering liver transplant as a competing event, demonstrated a similar reduction in risk (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99, p = 0.041), suggesting that the reduced risk of death is not fully explained by higher rates of transplantation. Our study highlights systematic differences in HCC care between large volume liver transplant centres and other sites, which has not previously been well-described. Further work is needed to better define the reasons for differences in treatment allocation and to aim to minimise unwarranted treatment variation to maximise patient outcomes across Australia.

Comparison of outcomes following surgical resection, percutaneous ablation or stereotactic body radiation therapy in early-stage, solitary and small (≤3 cm) treatment-naïve hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is associated with high local control rates in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study reports the outcomes of SBRT compared to surgical resection (SR) and percutaneous ablation (PA) for treatment-naïve, solitary HCCs ≤3 cm.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with BCLC stage 0/A HCC with a single ≤3 cm lesion, treated with curative intent between 2016 and 2020. SBRT was used for patients considered unsuitable for SR or PA. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were treatment-related clinical toxicity rates and local control (LC) rates.

RESULTS

There were 112 patients included in this study. SBRT was delivered in 36 patients (32.1%), 51 had PA (45.5%) and 25 underwent SR (22.3%). Median follow-up was 23 months (range, 3-60 months) from diagnosis. The 3-year PFS and OS were 67% and 69% following SBRT, 55% and 80% following PA, and 85% and 100% following SR, respectively. Patients in the SR cohort had significantly better 3-year PFS and OS compared to SBRT and PA groups (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). There was no significant difference in PFS (p = 0.15) or OS (p = 0.23) between SBRT and PA treated patients. The 3-year LC rate for the entire cohort was 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with treatment-naïve, early-stage solitary HCCs ≤3 cm, SBRT was associated with comparable PFS, OS and LC outcomes to PA. SBRT should be considered as a curative intent therapy to avoid treatment stage migration in this favourable prognostic cohort of patients.

The management and outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of mortality in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This systematic review aimed to appraise all population-based studies describing the management and outcomes of HCC in SSA.

METHODS

A systematic review based on a search in PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), AfricaWide and Cochrane up to June 2023 was performed. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration no: CRD42022363955).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine publications from 15 of 48 SSA countries were identified; 3989 patients were studied. The majority (74%) were male, with median ages ranging from 28 to 54 years. Chronic Hepatitis B infection was a leading aetiology and non-cirrhotic HCC was frequently reported. Curative treatment (liver resection, transplantation and ablation) was offered to 6% of the cohort. Most patients (84%) received only best supportive care (BSC), with few survivors at one year.

CONCLUSION

The majority of SSA countries do not have data reporting outcomes for HCC. Most patients receive only BSC, and curative treatment is seldom available in the region. Outcomes are poor compared to high-income countries.

Monitoring quality of care in hepatocellular carcinoma: A modified Delphi consensus

Although there are several established international guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there is limited information detailing specific indicators of good quality care. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of quality indicators (QIs) to underpin the management of HCC. We undertook a modified, two-round, Delphi consensus study comprising a working group and experts involved in the management of HCC as well as consumer representatives. QIs were derived from an extensive review of the literature. The role of the participants was to identify the most important and measurable QIs for inclusion in an HCC clinical quality registry. From an initial 94 QIs, 40 were proposed to the participants. Of these, 23 QIs ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final set. This included (a) nine related to the initial diagnosis and staging, including timing to diagnosis, required baseline clinical and laboratory assessments, prior surveillance for HCC, diagnostic imaging and pathology, tumor staging, and multidisciplinary care; (b) thirteen related to treatment and management, including role of antiviral therapy, timing to treatment, localized ablation and locoregional therapy, surgery, transplantation, systemic therapy, method of response assessment, and supportive care; and (c) one outcome assessment related to surgical mortality. Conclusion: We identified a core set of nationally agreed measurable QIs for the diagnosis, staging, and management of HCC. The adherence to these best practice QIs may lead to system-level improvement in quality of care and, ultimately, improvement in patient outcomes, including survival.