Hepatocellular carcinoma screening: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
(partly from CZ)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
==Overview==
==Overview==


"Surveillance is deemed cost-effective if the expected HCC risk exceeds 1.5% per year in patients with hepatitis C and 0.2% per year in patients with hepatitis B. Analysis of recent studies show that alpha-fetoprotein determination lacks adequate sensitivity and specificity for effective surveillance (and for diagnosis). Thus, surveillance has to be based on ultrasound examination. The recommended screening interval is 6 months" according to a [[clinical practice guideline]] by the [http://www.aasld.org/ American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases]. <ref name="pmid21374666"/>
"Surveillance is deemed cost-effective if the expected HCC risk exceeds 1.5% per year in patients with hepatitis C and 0.2% per year in patients with hepatitis B. Analysis of recent studies show that alpha-fetoprotein determination lacks adequate sensitivity and specificity for effective surveillance (and for diagnosis). Thus, surveillance has to be based on ultrasound examination. The recommended screening interval is 6 months" according to a [[clinical practice guideline]] by the [http://www.aasld.org/ American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases].<ref name="pmid21374666">{{cite journal| author=Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases| title=Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. | journal=Hepatology | year= 2011 | volume= 53 | issue= 3 | pages= 1020-2 | pmid=21374666 | doi=10.1002/hep.24199 | pmc=PMC3084991 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=21374666  }} </ref>


"In a mixed-aetiology cohort, the most effective surveillance strategy is to screen each patient with AFP assay and ultrasound imaging on a 6-monthly basis" according to a [[systematic review]] by the [http://www.hta.ac.uk/ NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme] (UK). <ref name="pmid17767898"/>
"In a mixed-aetiology cohort, the most effective surveillance strategy is to screen each patient with AFP assay and ultrasound imaging on a 6-monthly basis" according to a [[systematic review]] by the [http://www.hta.ac.uk/ NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme] (UK).<ref name="pmid17767898">{{cite journal| author=Thompson Coon J, Rogers G, Hewson P, Wright D, Anderson R, Cramp M et al.| title=Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and economic analysis. | journal=Health Technol Assess | year= 2007 | volume= 11 | issue= 34 | pages= 1-206 | pmid=17767898 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=17767898  }} </ref>


==Evidence from trials==
==Evidence from trials==
Regarding patients with [[hepatitis B]], a [[meta-analysis]] by the [[Cochrane Collaboration]] concluded "".<ref name="pmid22972059">{{cite journal| author=Aghoram R, Cai P, Dickinson JA| title=Alpha-foetoprotein and/or liver ultrasonography for screening of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B. | journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev | year= 2012 | volume= 9 | issue=  | pages= CD002799 | pmid=22972059 | doi=10.1002/14651858.CD002799.pub2 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=22972059  }} </ref> In a [[randomized controlled trial]] included in the meta-analysis, the [[relative risk ratio]] of biannual [[alpha-fetoprotein]] and [[ultrasonography]], as compared to [[no screening]], for mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma was 0.6 and the [[relative risk reduction]] was 36.7%. In populations similar to those in this study which had a rate of risk as measured by the mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma of 0.13% without treatment, the [[number needed to treat]] is 2070. <ref name="pmid15042359"/>
Regarding patients with [[hepatitis B]], a [[meta-analysis]] by the [[Cochrane Collaboration]] concluded "".<ref name="pmid22972059">{{cite journal| author=Aghoram R, Cai P, Dickinson JA| title=Alpha-foetoprotein and/or liver ultrasonography for screening of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B. | journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev | year= 2012 | volume= 9 | issue=  | pages= CD002799 | pmid=22972059 | doi=10.1002/14651858.CD002799.pub2 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=22972059  }} </ref> In a [[randomized controlled trial]] included in the meta-analysis, the [[relative risk ratio]] of biannual [[alpha-fetoprotein]] and [[ultrasonography]], as compared to [[no screening]], for mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma was 0.6 and the [[relative risk reduction]] was 36.7%. In populations similar to those in this study which had a rate of risk as measured by the mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma of 0.13% without treatment, the [[number needed to treat]] is 2070.<ref name="pmid15042359">{{cite journal| author=Zhang BH, Yang BH, Tang ZY| title=Randomized controlled trial of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. | journal=J Cancer Res Clin Oncol | year= 2004 | volume= 130 | issue= 7 | pages= 417-22 | pmid=15042359 | doi=10.1007/s00432-004-0552-0 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15042359  }} </ref>





Revision as of 13:33, 5 October 2012

Hepatocellular carcinoma Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes of Hepatocellular carcinoma

Differentiating Hepatocellular carcinoma from other Diseases

Epidemiology & Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications & Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic study of choice

History and symptoms

Physical Examination

Lab Tests

Electrocardiogram

Chest X Ray

CT

MRI

Echocardiography or Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Hepatocellular carcinoma screening On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Hepatocellular carcinoma screening

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Hepatocellular carcinoma screening

CDC on Hepatocellular carcinoma screening

Hepatocellular carcinoma screening in the news

Blogs on Hepatocellular carcinoma screening

Directions to Hospitals Treating Hepatocellular carcinoma

Risk calculators and risk factors for Hepatocellular carcinoma screening

Please help WikiDoc by adding more content here. It's easy! Click here to learn about editing.

Overview

"Surveillance is deemed cost-effective if the expected HCC risk exceeds 1.5% per year in patients with hepatitis C and 0.2% per year in patients with hepatitis B. Analysis of recent studies show that alpha-fetoprotein determination lacks adequate sensitivity and specificity for effective surveillance (and for diagnosis). Thus, surveillance has to be based on ultrasound examination. The recommended screening interval is 6 months" according to a clinical practice guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.[1]

"In a mixed-aetiology cohort, the most effective surveillance strategy is to screen each patient with AFP assay and ultrasound imaging on a 6-monthly basis" according to a systematic review by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (UK).[2]

Evidence from trials

Regarding patients with hepatitis B, a meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration concluded "".[3] In a randomized controlled trial included in the meta-analysis, the relative risk ratio of biannual alpha-fetoprotein and ultrasonography, as compared to no screening, for mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma was 0.6 and the relative risk reduction was 36.7%. In populations similar to those in this study which had a rate of risk as measured by the mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma of 0.13% without treatment, the number needed to treat is 2070.[4]


References

  1. Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (2011). "Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update". Hepatology. 53 (3): 1020–2. doi:10.1002/hep.24199. PMC 3084991. PMID 21374666.
  2. Thompson Coon J, Rogers G, Hewson P, Wright D, Anderson R, Cramp M; et al. (2007). "Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and economic analysis". Health Technol Assess. 11 (34): 1–206. PMID 17767898.
  3. Aghoram R, Cai P, Dickinson JA (2012). "Alpha-foetoprotein and/or liver ultrasonography for screening of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 9: CD002799. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002799.pub2. PMID 22972059.
  4. Zhang BH, Yang BH, Tang ZY (2004). "Randomized controlled trial of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma". J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 130 (7): 417–22. doi:10.1007/s00432-004-0552-0. PMID 15042359.


Template:WikiDoc Sources