Anti-hepatitis B core positivity as a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma in alcoholic cirrhosis: a case-control study

Isolated Hepatitis B Core Antibody Positivity and Long-Term Liver-Related Mortality in Korea: A Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Whether isolated hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positivity is a risk factor for long-term liver-related outcomes in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-endemic areas remains unclear. We aimed to investigate liver-related and liver cancer mortality of isolated anti-HBc positivity in Korean adults.

METHODS

A cohort study comprised 609,299 Korean adults who underwent hepatitis B serologic markers, as a part of health examination. Liver-related and liver cancer mortality were determined using the National Death Records.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 9.0 years (interquartile range, 5.5-13.7 years), 554 liver-related deaths were identified (liver-related mortality, 9.6 cases per 10 5 person-years). The prevalence of isolated anti-HBc positivity was 3.8% (n = 23,399) and was age-dependent. After adjustment for age, sex, and other confounders, hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for liver-related mortality in isolated anti-HBc-positive and hepatitis B surface antigen-positive subjects compared with HBV-unexposed subjects were 1.69 (1.22-2.33) and 27.02 (21.45-34.04), respectively. These associations were pronounced in the analyses using liver cancer mortality as an outcome. Among isolated anti-HBc-positive patients, the risks of liver-related and liver cancer mortality were significantly higher in those with high fibrosis-4 scores compared with patients unexposed to HBV with the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 15.59 (9.21-26.37) and 72.66 (36.96-142.86), respectively.

DISCUSSION

In this cohort of Korean adults, isolated anti-HBc positivity was associated with an increased risk of liver-related and liver cancer mortality, especially when accompanied by a high fibrosis score. Isolated anti-HBc positivity may be an independent risk factor for liver-related outcomes, especially in high-endemic areas.

Transarterial chemoembolisation plus I125 seeds implantation for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the benefits and harms of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus I125 seeds implantation compared with TACE alone, regardless of chemotherapeutic drugs and vascular occlusive agents, for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. 

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. Although surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only about 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these interventions. Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include ablative and transarterial interventions - selective yttrium-90 microsphere transarterial radioembolisation - in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 (Y-90) microsphere transarterial radioembolisation given as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional interventions for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index - Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until September 2019. We manually checked the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted information on participants, interventions, outcomes, trial design, and trial methods. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined domains and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary review outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality, time to progression of the tumour, tumour response, non-serious adverse events, and liver transplantation. For dichotomous variables, we calculated risk ratio (RR), and for continuous variables, we planned to calculate mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We based time-to-event data analyses on hazard ratios (HRs).

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised trials with 1340 participants in total fulfilled the review inclusion criteria and provided data for one or more of our analysed outcomes. All trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low to very low. One trial compared radioembolisation plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to progression, and tumour response rates were not reported. Serious adverse events were reported in 63 trial participants (39.6%) in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus 70 trial participants (38.5%) in the sorafenib group (very low-certainty evidence). Hyperbilirubinaemia was approximately three times more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus the sorafenib group (14.5% versus 4.4%; very low-certainty evidence). Fatigue was more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group than in the sorafenib group, at 35.2% versus 24.2% of trial participants. Two trials compared radioembolisation versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, one-year all-cause mortality was 62.7% in the radioembolisation group versus 53.0% in the sorafenib group (1 trial; n = 360; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the quality of life between radioembolisation and sorafenib groups (1 trial). Global health status subscore was better in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.0048; 1 trial). Fewer participants had serious adverse events in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (27 (20.8%) in the radioembolisation group versus 57 (35.2%) in the sorafenib group; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 6.1 months versus 5.4 months in the sorafenib group (1 trial). The RR for disease control rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; n = 748; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor sorafenib. In two trials with 734 participants, radioembolisation seemed to be less likely to be associated with hand-foot skin reaction (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence), skin rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), diarrhoea (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), and hypertension (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported cancer-related mortality. Three trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, none of these trials reported all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality. The RR for serious adverse events was 1.41 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.14; n = 97; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor chemoembolisation. One trial reported quality of life and noted no differences between intervention groups with regard to this outcome at week 12 (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to progression was not reached in the radioembolisation group and was 6.8 months in the chemoembolisation group (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.557; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 371 days versus 336 days in the chemoembolisation group (P = 0.5764; 1 trial). Disease control rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 73.3% with radioembolisation versus 76.9% with chemoembolisation (1 trial). According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, tumour response was reported in 52% of participants who received radioembolisation versus 63% of those who received chemoembolisation (1 trial). Patients in the chemoembolisation group experienced diarrhoea (P = 0.031; 1 trial) and hypoalbuminaemia (P < 0.001; 1 trial) more frequently. Four trials were sponsored by industry, and two by University. We found two ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation with or without sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is highly insufficient. We cannot determine if radioembolisation plus sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone affects all-cause mortality or the occurrence of adverse events. Radioembolisation compared with sorafenib seemed to achieve equivalent survival and to cause fewer adverse effects, but our certainty was very low. Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is also highly insufficient. Radioembolisation did not seem to differ from chemoembolisation in terms of serious adverse events and quality of life, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Further high-quality placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials are needed to assess patient-centred outcomes.

Alcoholic Liver Disease: High Risk or Low Risk for Developing Hepatocellular Carcinoma?

In this review we critically assess the literature to evaluate the level of risk posed by alcohol as both a primary etiology of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and as a cofactor in its development. Although there have been conflicting findings, based on the body of evidence to date, it appears that the linkage between compensated alcoholic liver disease-associated cirrhosis and HCC is best characterized as medium-high risk, with the risk increasing with age and with quantity and duration of alcohol consumption and is more pronounced in females. While abstinence is the most effective way to reduce HCC risk, its effect seems largely dependent on the severity of liver damage at the point of cessation. Alcohol clearly interacts with other etiologies and conditions including viral hepatitis B and C, hereditary hemochromatosis, diabetes, and obesity to increase the risk for developing HCC, either synergistically or additively. Continued progress in genetics, especially through mechanistic-based and genome-wide association studies may ultimately identify which single nucleotide polymorphisms are risk factors for the onset of alcoholic liver disease and its progression to HCC and lead to the development of targeted therapeutics which may help providers better manage at-risk patients.

Association between anti-HBc positivity and hepatocellular carcinoma in HBsAg-negative subjects with chronic liver disease: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was performed to ascertain to what extent hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/anti-hepatitis B core (anti-HBc)-positive subjects with chronic liver disease are at a higher risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) than the anti-HBc-negative.All studies included had to fulfill the following characteristics and inclusion criteria: they investigated the relationship between HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive serology and the occurrence of HCC, whether a case-control or cohort study, they provided relative risk (RR) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were available as a full text written in English, and were published and indexed up to April 2015.Twenty-six original studies met the inclusion criteria, allowing a meta-analysis on 44,553 patients. The risk of HCC among the 9986 anti-HBc-positive subjects was 67% higher than in the 34,567 anti-HBc-negative (95% CI = 1.44-1.95, P < 0.0001). The results were similar when groups of patients with a different stage of liver disease (patients with chronic liver disease, patients with cirrhosis), with different ethnicity (Asian and non-Asian) and etiology (HCV and non-HCV) were considered. The risk of HCC was significantly higher in the 651 anti-HBs/anti-HBc-positive patients (RR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.17-1.58, P = 0.03) and in the 595 anti-HBs-negative/anti-HBc-positive subjects (RR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.58-2.92, P < 0.0001) than in the 1242 anti-HBs/anti-HBc negative. However, the RR from 8 studies indicated that the risk of HCC was 35% lower among the anti-HBs/anti-HBc-positive subjects compared to the anti-HBs-negative/anti-HBc-positive (RR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.52-0.8, P < 0.0001).This meta-analysis shows that in HBsAg-negative subjects with chronic liver disease, anti-HBc positivity is strongly associated with the presence of HCC, an association observed in all subgroups according to the stage of the disease, etiology, and ethnicity.

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and trans-arterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 microsphere trans-arterial radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We reviewed data from the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to December 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing yttrium-90-90 microsphere radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently extracted the relevant information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes for this review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the studies. The two review authors assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined risk of bias domains. We used Trial Sequential Analysis to control the risk of random errors. We assessed the methodological quality with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised clinical trials with 68 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Both trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. One of the included trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolization for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma as classified by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, while the other included trial was an interim analysis of a randomised trial assessing radioembolisation combined with sorafenib versus sorafenib monotherapy in participants with BCLC-advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma. The available data were insufficient to perform the planned analyses. Neither of the two trials reported data on all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality, or time to progression of the tumour. The trial comparing radioembolisation with chemoembolization reported quality of life and serious adverse events, and there were no statistically significant differences between the trial groups with regard to these outcomes at week 12. On the basis of the two included randomised clinical trials, single-session radioembolisation appeared to be as safe as multiple sessions of chemoembolization for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma and had a similar impact on quality of life, but data were too sparse to exclude even major differences. Radioembolisation followed by sorafenib appeared to be as well tolerated as sorafenib alone for advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma, but data were too sparse to exclude even major differences. We also identified five ongoing studies evaluating the topic of our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory to better assess the potential beneficial and harmful outcomes of yttrium-90 microsphere trans-arterial radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Occult hepatitis B virus infection predicts de novo hepatitis B infection in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Occult hepatitis B virus infection (OBI) in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) is a suspected source of de novo hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after LT. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of OBI in liver transplant recipients with alcoholic cirrhosis and demonstrate the association between OBI and de novo HBV infection after LT in these patients.

METHODS

Forty-three patients with alcoholic cirrhosis who were negative for HBsAg before LT were recruited in this retrospective study. DNA was extracted from paraffin-embedded native liver tissues and quantified for HBV DNA by real-time PCR. Correlation between de novo HBV infection after LT (positive HBsAg and/or detectable HBV DNA in serum) and detection of intrahepatic HBV DNA before LT was analysed.

RESULTS

Detectable HBV DNA in the explanted liver was found in 41.9% (18/43) of the patients and was thus defined as OBI, which was correlated with the presence of serum hepatitis B core antibody (P = 0.008). De novo HBV infection occurred in 18.6% (8/43) of the recipients at a median of 10 months after LT. The rate of de novo HBV infection was 38.9% (7/18) in patients with OBI, compared with 4% (1/25) in patients without OBI (P = 0.004). Furthermore, de novo HBV infection was inversely correlated with the presence of hepatitis B surface antibody in recipients with OBI (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

With a prevalence of 41.9% in liver transplant recipients with alcoholic cirrhosis, OBI in the native liver can predict de novo HBV infection after LT.

[Occult hepatitis B virus infection and hepatocellular carcinoma]

Many studies have suggested that occult HBV infection has a substantial clinical relevance to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Occult HBV infection is an important risk factor for the development of cirrhosis and HCC in patients without HBsAg. As a matter of fact, occult HBV infection is one of the most common causes of crytogenic HCC in endemic areas of HBV. However, there still are controversial issues about the association between occult HBV infection and HCC according to the underlying liver disease. In alcoholic cirrhosis, occult HBV infection may exert synergistic effect on the development of HCC. However, there is insufficient evidence to relate occult HBV infection to hepatocarcinogenesis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. In cryptogenic HCC, occult HBV infection may play a direct role in the development of HCC. In order to elucidate the assocciation between occult HBV infection and HCC, underlying liver disease must be specified and larger number of cases must be included in future studies.

The presence of hepatitis B core antibody is associated with more advanced liver disease in alcoholic patients with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Liver disease is more severe in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections and alcohol-induced liver injury. Whether the same is true for alcoholic patients with cirrhosis who have recovered from previous HBV infections remains to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

To document the extent of liver disease in alcoholic patients with cirrhosis who test negative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and test positive for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-four alcoholic patients with cirrhosis were divided into anti-HBc-positive (N = 171) and anti-HBc-negative (N = 83) cohorts. Demographic, clinical, and biochemical features were retrospectively analyzed. Prognostic scores and the prevalence of patients at high risk for short-term mortality were calculated. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with an increased risk for short-term mortality.

RESULTS

Jaundice was more common in the anti-HBc-positive cohort (32.2% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.02). This cohort also had higher serum bilirubin (70.9 vs. 50.4 μM/L, p = 0.03), prothrombin times (15.6 vs. 14.4 s, p = 0.01), MELD scores (8.5 vs. 4.6, p = 0.01), i-MELD scores (28.6 vs. 24.7, p = 0.03), MDF scores (14.2 vs. 6.8, p = 0.02) and ABIC scores (7.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.01). In addition, anti-HBC-positive patients were more often at high risk for short-term mortality (40.4% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.03). Multivariate analysis identified anti-HBc-positive status (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.10-3.36) and alcohol intake ≥150 g/day (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.10-3.66) as independent risk factors for high risk of mortality.

CONCLUSION

The anti-HBc-positive state is associated with more advanced liver disease in alcoholic patients with cirrhosis. A prospective study including HBV-DNA testing and liver biopsies should be considered to validate and further elucidate these findings.