Harms of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance

HES V2.0 outperforms GALAD for detection of HCC: A phase 3 biomarker study in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The original hepatocellular carcinoma early detection screening (HES) score, which combines alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) with age, alanine aminotransferase, and platelets, has better performance than AFP alone for early HCC detection. We have developed HES V2.0 by adding AFP-L3 and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin to the score and compared its performance to GALAD and ASAP scores among patients with cirrhosis.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We conducted a prospective-specimen collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation phase 3 biomarker cohort study in patients with cirrhosis enrolled in imaging and AFP surveillance. True-positive rate (TPR)/sensitivity and false-positive rate for any or early HCC were calculated for GALAD, ASAP, and HES V2.0 scores within 6, 12, and 24 months of HCC diagnosis. We calculated the AUROC curve and estimated TPR based on an optimal threshold at a fixed false-positive rate of 10%. We analyzed 2331 patients, of whom 125 developed HCC (71% in the early stages). For any HCC, HES V2.0 had higher TPR than GALAD overall (+7.2%), at 6 months (+3.6%), at 12 months (+7.2%), and 24 months (+13.0%) before HCC diagnosis. HES V2.0 had higher TPR than ASAP for all time points (+5.9% to +12.0%). For early HCC, HES V2.0 had higher sensitivity/TPR than GALAD overall (+6.7%), at 12 months (+6.3%), and 24 months (+14.6%) but not at 6 months (+0.0%) and higher than ASAP for all time points (+13.4% to +18.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective cohort study, HES V2.0 had a significantly higher performance for identifying new HCC, including early stage, than GALAD or ASAP.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: Evidence-Based Tailored Approach

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is recommended by professional society guidelines given a consistent association with reduced HCC-related mortality. HCC surveillance should be performed using semiannual abdominal ultrasound and alpha-fetoprotein, although this combination has suboptimal sensitivity and can miss more than one-third of HCC at an early stage. There are promising emerging blood-based and imaging-based strategies, including abbreviated MRI and biomarker panels; however, these require further validation before routine use in clinical practice. HCC surveillance is underused in clinical practice due to patient-related and provider-related barriers, highlighting a need for interventions to improve surveillance utilization in clinical practice.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma from a Hepatologist's Perspective

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of primary liver cancer, represents a growing health challenge worldwide. The incidence of HCC is rising, which, in turn, has led to a corresponding increase in the associated number of deaths. HCC will become the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States by 2030. HCC usually develops in the setting of chronic liver disease. Individuals at increased risk of HCC are recommended to undergo surveillance with ultrasound every 6 months along with serum α-fetoprotein testing. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are considered alternatives based on specific patient factors. Lesions suspicious for HCC are recommended to undergo a diagnostic testing, which includes contrast-enhanced multiphase CT or MRI and liver biopsy when findings are indeterminate. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy is the most used assessment for patients with HCC ( Fig. 2 ). Curative therapies include resection, liver transplantation, and ablation. Locoregional therapies, such as transarterial chemoembolization and radioembolization, can be used for patients with intermediate-stage HCC. For patients with advanced-stage HCC, systemic therapy is often used. This review aims to provide an overview of HCC from a hepatologist's perspective, including epidemiology, screening, surveillance, diagnosis, and management.

Standardizing liver imaging reporting and interpretation: LI-RADS and beyond

Imaging plays a crucial role in diagnosis and post-treatment monitoring of primary liver cancers. Clear, consistent, and actionable communication of imaging results is crucial to avoid miscommunication and potential detrimental impact on patient care. In this review, we discuss the importance, advantages, and potential impact of universal adoption of standardized terminology and interpretive criteria for liver imaging, from the point of view of radiologists and clinicians.

Opportunities to address gaps in early detection and improve outcomes of liver cancer

Death rates from primary liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) have continued to rise in the United States over the recent decades despite the availability of an increasing range of treatment modalities, including new systemic therapies. Prognosis is strongly associated with tumor stage at diagnosis; however, most cases of HCC are diagnosed beyond an early stage. This lack of early detection has contributed to low survival rates. Professional society guidelines recommend semiannual ultrasound-based HCC screening for at-risk populations, yet HCC surveillance continues to be underused in clinical practice. On April 28, 2022, the Hepatitis B Foundation convened a workshop to discuss the most pressing challenges and barriers to early HCC detection and the need to better leverage existing and emerging tools and technologies that could improve HCC screening and early detection. In this commentary, we summarize technical, patient-level, provider-level, and system-level challenges and opportunities to improve processes and outcomes across the HCC screening continuum. We highlight promising approaches to HCC risk stratification and screening, including new biomarkers, advanced imaging incorporating artificial intelligence, and algorithms for risk stratification. Workshop participants emphasized that action to improve early detection and reduce HCC mortality is urgently needed, noting concern that many of the challenges we face today are the same or similar to those faced a decade ago and that HCC mortality rates have not meaningfully improved. Increasing the uptake of HCC screening was identified as a short-term priority while developing and validating better screening tests and risk-appropriate surveillance strategies.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk Scores Predict Patients Under Surveillance at Low Risk of Benefit and High Risk of Harm

AIMS

Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is recommended for patients with cirrhosis. Multiple risk scores aim to stratify HCC risk, potentially allowing individualized surveillance strategies. We sought to validate four risk scores and quantify the consequences of surveillance via the calculation of numbers needed to benefit (NNB) and harm (NNH) according to classification by risk score strata.

METHODS

Data were collected on 482 patients with cirrhosis during 2013-2014, with follow-up until 31/12/2019. Risk scores (aMAP, Toronto risk index, ADRESS HCC, HCC risk score) were derived from index clinic results. The area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated for each. Additionally, per-risk strata, NNB was calculated as total surveillance ultrasounds per surveillance diagnosed early HCC (stage 0/A) and NNH as total ultrasounds performed per false positive (abnormal surveillance with normal follow-up imaging).

RESULTS

22 (4.6%) patients developed HCC. 77% (17/22) were diagnosed through surveillance, of which 13/17 (76%) were early stage. There were 88 false positives and no false negatives (normal surveillance result however subsequent HCC detection). Overall NNB and NNH were 241 and 36, respectively. No score was significantly superior using AUC. Patients classified as low risk demonstrated no surveillance benefit (AMAP, THRI) or had a high NNB of > 300/900 (ADRESS HCC, HCC risk score), with low NNH (24-38).

CONCLUSION

Given the lack of benefit and increased harm through false positives in low-risk groups, a risk-based surveillance strategy may have the potential to reduce patient harm and increase benefit from HCC surveillance.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

This was not a clinical trial and the study was not pre-registered.

Recall patterns and risk of primary liver cancer for subcentimeter ultrasound liver observations: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis and subcentimeter lesions on liver ultrasound are recommended to undergo short-interval follow-up ultrasound because of the presumed low risk of primary liver cancer (PLC).

AIMS

The aim of this study is to characterize recall patterns and risk of PLC in patients with subcentimeter liver lesions on ultrasound.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study among patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B infection who had subcentimeter ultrasound lesions between January 2017 and December 2019. We excluded patients with a history of PLC or concomitant lesions ≥1 cm in diameter. We used Kaplan Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses to characterize time-to-PLC and factors associated with PLC, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 746 eligible patients, most (66.0%) had a single observation, and the median diameter was 0.7 cm (interquartile range: 0.5-0.8 cm). Recall strategies varied, with only 27.8% of patients undergoing guideline-concordant ultrasound within 3-6 months. Over a median follow-up of 26 months, 42 patients developed PLC (39 HCC and 3 cholangiocarcinoma), yielding an incidence of 25.7 cases (95% CI, 6.2-47.0) per 1000 person-years, with 3.9% and 6.7% developing PLC at 2 and 3 years, respectively. Factors associated with time-to-PLC were baseline alpha-fetoprotein >10 ng/mL (HR: 4.01, 95% CI, 1.85-8.71), platelet count ≤150 (HR: 4.90, 95% CI, 1.95-12.28), and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis (vs. Child-Pugh A: HR: 2.54, 95% CI, 1.27-5.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Recall patterns for patients with subcentimeter liver lesions on ultrasound varied widely. The low risk of PLC in these patients supports short-interval ultrasound in 3-6 months, although diagnostic CT/MRI may be warranted for high-risk subgroups such as those with elevated alpha-fetoprotein levels.

The Performance of AFP, AFP-3, DCP as Biomarkers for Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): A Phase 3 Biomarker Study in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

α-fetoprotein (AFP), AFP Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) in combination or in GALAD (Gender, Age, AFP-L3, AFP, and DCP) were tested for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in retrospective cohort and case-control studies. However, there is a paucity of prospective data and no phase III biomarker studies from North American populations.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective specimen collection, retrospective blinded evaluation (PRoBE) cohort study in patients with cirrhosis enrolled in a 6-monthly surveillance with liver imaging and AFP. Blood samples were prospectively collected every 6 months and analyzed in a retrospective blinded fashion. True positive rate (TPR) and false positive rate (FPR) for any or early HCC were calculated within 6, 12, and 24 months of HCC diagnosis based on published thresholds for biomarkers individually, in combination and in GALAD and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Early Detection Screening (HES) scores. We calculated the area under the receiver operating curve and estimated TPR based on an optimal threshold at a fixed FPR of 10%.

RESULTS

The analysis was conducted in a cohort of 534 patients; 50 developed HCC (68% early) and 484 controls with negative imaging. GALAD had the highest TPR (63.6%, 73.8%, and 71.4% for all HCC, and 53.8%, 63.3%, and 61.8 % for early HCC within 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively) but an FPR of 21.5% to 22.9%. However, there were no differences in the area under the receiver operating curve among GALAD, HES, AFP-L3, or DCP. At a fixed 10% FPR, TPR for GALAD dropped (42.4%, 45.2%, and 46.9%) and was not different from HES (36.4%, 40.5%, and 40.8%) or AFP-L3 alone (39.4%, 45.2%, and 44.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective cohort phase III biomarker study, GALAD was associated with a considerable improvement in sensitivity for HCC detection but an increase in false-positive results. GALAD performance was modest and not different from AFP-L3 alone or HES.

Impact of ultrasonographic blind spots for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma during surveillance

Background

Abdominal ultrasonography (US) is the backbone of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance. Although previous studies have evaluated clinical factors related to surveillance failure, none have focused specifically on US blind spots.

Methods

This study included 1,289 patients who underwent 6 months intervals surveillance using US and serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and were eventually diagnosed with single-nodular HCC. Patients were divided into US-detected group (n = 1,062) and US-missed group (HCC detected only by AFP ≥ 20ng/mL; n = 227). Blind spots consisted of four locations: hepatic dome, caudate lobe or around the inferior vena cava, <1 cm beneath the ribs, and the surface of the left lateral segment. Both groups were compared by HCC location, proportional distribution, treatment method, and overall survival.

Results

A higher proportion of HCCs were located within blind spots in the US-missed group than in the US-detected group (64.3% vs. 44.6%, P < 0.001). HCC ≥ 2 cm detected in blind spots was higher than in non-blind areas (60.3% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.001). Blind spot HCCs were more treated with surgery, whereas those located in a non-blind area were more treated with local ablation. Patients with an HCC located within a blind spot in the US-detected group had better overall survival than the same in the US-missed group (P = 0.008).

Conclusions

Using the current surveillance test, blind spots affected the initially detected HCC tumor size, applicability of the treatment modality, and overall survival. Physicians should pay attention to US blind spots when performing US-based HCC surveillance.

Overdiagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Prevented by guidelines?

Overdiagnosis refers to detection of disease that would not otherwise become clinically apparent during a patient's lifetime. Overdiagnosis is common and has been reported for several cancer types, although there are few studies describing its prevalence in HCC surveillance programs. Overdiagnosis can have serious negative consequences including overtreatment and associated complications, financial toxicity, and psychological harms related to being labeled with a cancer diagnosis. Overdiagnosis can occur for several different reasons including inaccurate diagnostic criteria, detection of premalignant or very early malignant lesions, detection of indolent tumors, and competing risks of mortality. The risk of overdiagnosis is partly mitigated, albeit not eliminated, by several guideline recommendations, including definitions for the at-risk population in whom surveillance should be performed, surveillance modalities, surveillance interval, recall procedures, and HCC diagnostic criteria. Continued research is needed to further characterize the burden and trends of overdiagnosis as well as identify strategies to reduce overdiagnosis in the future.

Current Landscape and Future Perspectives of Abbreviated MRI for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance

While ultrasound (US) is considered an important tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance, it has limited sensitivity for detecting early-stage HCC. Abbreviated MRI (AMRI) has recently gained popularity owing to better sensitivity in its detection of early-stage HCC than US, while also minimizing the time and cost in comparison to complete contrast-enhanced MRI, as AMRI includes only a few essential sequences tailored for detecting HCC. Currently, three AMRI protocols exist, namely gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatobiliary-phase AMRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced AMRI, and non-enhanced AMRI. In this study, we discussed the rationale and technical details of AMRI techniques for achieving optimal surveillance performance. The strengths, weaknesses, and current issues of each AMRI protocol were also elucidated. Moreover, we scrutinized previously performed AMRI studies regarding clinical and technical factors. Reporting and recall strategies were discussed while considering the differences in AMRI protocols. A risk-stratified approach for the target population should be taken to maximize the benefits of AMRI and the cost-effectiveness should be considered. In the era of multiple HCC surveillance tools, patients need to be fully informed about their choices for better adherence to a surveillance program.

Hepatocellular carcinoma tumour volume doubling time: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumour growth patterns have important implications for surveillance intervals, prognostication and treatment decisions but have not been well described for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of our study was to characterise HCC doubling time and identify correlates for indolent and rapid growth patterns.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of Medline and EMBASE databases from inception to December 2019 and national meeting abstracts from 2010 to 2018. We identified studies reporting HCC tumour growth or tumour volume doubling time (TVDT), without intervening treatment, and abstracted data to calculate TVDT and correlates of growth patterns (rapid defined as TVDT <3 months and indolent as TVDT >9 months). Pooled TVDT was calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 20 studies, including 1374 HCC lesions in 1334 patients. The pooled TVDT was 4.6 months (95% CI 3.9 to 5.3 months I²=94%), with 35% classified as rapid, 27.4% intermediate and 37.6% indolent growth. In subgroup analysis, studies from Asia reported shorter TVDT than studies elsewhere (4.1 vs 5.8 months). The most consistent correlates of rapid tumour growth included hepatitis B aetiology, smaller tumour size (continuous), alpha fetoprotein doubling time and poor tumour differentiation. Studies were limited by small sample sizes, measurement bias and selection bias.

CONCLUSION

TVDT of HCC is approximately 4-5 months; however, there is heterogeneity in tumour growth patterns, including more aggressive patterns in Asian hepatitis B-predominant populations. Identifying correlates of tumour growth patterns is important to better individualise HCC prognostication and treatment decisions.