Search

BACKGROUND & Amis: Widespread use of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has resulted in increased numbers of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after achieving sustained virologic response ('post-SVR HCC') worldwide. Few data compare regional differences in presentation and prognosis of patients with post-SVR HCC. METHODS We identified patients with advanced fibrosis (F3/F4) who developed incident post-SVR HCC between March, 2015 and October, 2021 from 30 sites in Europe, North America, South America, Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. We compared patient demographics, liver dysfunction, and tumor burden by region. We compared overall survival by region using Kaplan-Meier analysis and identified factors associated with survival using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS Among 8,796 patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis who achieved SVR, 583 (6.6%) developed incident HCC. There was marked regional variation in the proportion of detection by surveillance (range: 59.5-100%), median maximum tumor diameter (range: 1.8-5.0 cm), and proportion with multinodular HCC (range: 15.4-60.8%). Prognosis of patients highly varied by region (HR range: 1.82-9.92), with the highest survival in East Asia, North America, and South America, and lowest in the Middle East and South Asia. After adjusting for geographic region, HCC surveillance was associated with early-stage detection (BCLC stage 0/A: 71.0% vs. 21.3%, p

We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line.In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events.Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively.ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials.Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is among the leading causes of cancer incidence and death. Despite decades of research and development of new treatment options, the overall outcomes of patients with HCC continue to remain poor. There are areas of unmet need in risk prediction, early diagnosis, accurate prognostication, and individualized treatments for patients with HCC. Recent years have seen an explosive growth in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in medical research, with the field of HCC being no exception. Among the various AI-based machine learning algorithms, deep learning algorithms are considered state-of-the-art techniques for handling and processing complex multimodal data ranging from routine clinical variables to high-resolution medical images. This article will provide a comprehensive review of the recently published studies that have applied deep learning for risk prediction, diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment planning for patients with HCC.

Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is known to be underutilized; however, neither the variation of surveillance adherence by cirrhosis etiology nor the patient-side economic burden of surveillance are well understood. To identify potential barriers to HCC surveillance, we assessed utilization patterns and costs among US patients with cirrhosis monitored in routine clinical practice. We conducted a retrospective study of insured adult patients with cirrhosis using national administrative claims data from January 2013 through June 2019. Time up-to-date with recommended surveillance, correlates of surveillance receipt, and surveillance-associated costs were assessed during a ≥ 6-month follow-up. Among 15,543 patients with cirrhosis (mean [SD] age 64.0 [11.1] years, 50.7% male), 45.8% and 58.7% had received any abdominal imaging at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Patients were up-to-date with recommended surveillance for only 31% of a median 1.3-year follow-up. Those with viral hepatitis were more likely to receive surveillance than those with other etiologies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55, 95% CI 1.11–2.17, p = .010 for patients without a baseline gastroenterologist [GI] visit and 2.69, 95% CI 1.77–4.09, p < .001 for patients with a GI visit, relative to those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and no GI visit). For all etiologies except NAFLD, the HR (95% CI) for surveillance receipt was higher among patients with vs without a baseline GI visit (alcohol-related, 1.164 [1.002–1.351] vs 0.880 [0.796–0.972]; viral hepatitis, 2.688 [1.765–4.093] vs 1.553 [1.111–2.171]; Other, 0.612 [0.519–0.722] vs 0.549 [0.470–0.641]). Mean total and patient-paid daily surveillance-related costs ranged from $540 and $113, respectively (ultrasound) to $1580 and $300, respectively (magnetic resonance imaging), and mean estimated patient productivity costs were $730–$2514 annually. HCC surveillance was underutilized and was lowest among patients with nonviral etiologies and those who had not seen a gastroenterologist. Surveillance-related out-of-pocket expenses and lost productivity were substantial. The development of surveillance strategies that reduce patient burden, such as those using blood-based biomarkers, may help improve surveillance adherence and effectiveness.

Additional file 1. Coefficients for Time-varying Cox Model for Cirrhosis at 1 year.

BackgroundRecent trends of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) mortality and outcome remain unknown in the United States. We investigated the recent trends of primary liver cancer (excluding intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma) mortality and HCC stage, treatment, and overall survival (OS) in the United States.MethodsThe National Center for Health Statistics Database was analyzed to investigate the trend of primary liver cancer mortality. We analyzed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 Database to assess the temporal trend of tumor size, stage, treatment, and OS of HCC. We investigated the association between HCC diagnosis year and OS using Cox regression analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsDuring 2000-2018, liver cancer mortality rates increased until 2013, plateaued during 2013-2016 (annual percent change = 0.1%/y, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.1%/y to 2.4%/y, P = .92), and started to decline during 2016-2018 (annual percent change = -1.5%/y, 95% CI = -3.2%/y to 0.2%/y, P = .08). However, mortality continues to increase in American Indian and Alaska Native, individuals aged 65 years or older, and in 33 states. There was a 0.61% (95% CI = 0.53% to 0.69%, P

Additional file 1: Supplementary Material.

Supplemental Material, WEB_APPENDIX_3_17_2020 for Improving Cancer Outreach Effectiveness Through Targeting and Economic Assessments: Insights from a Randomized Field Experiment by Yixing Chen, Ju-Yeon Lee, Shrihari (Hari) Sridhar, Vikas Mittal, Katharine McCallister and Amit G. Singal in Journal of Marketing

Khaled M Elsayes,1 Ania Z Kielar,2 Victoria Chernyak,3 Ali Morshid,1 Alessandro Furlan,4 William R Masch,5 Robert M Marks,6 Aya Kamaya,7 Richard KG Do,8 Yuko Kono,9 Kathryn J Fowler,9 An Tang,10 Mustafa R Bashir,11 Elizabeth M Hecht,12 Kedar Jambhekar,13 Andrej Lyshchik,14 Shuchi K Rodgers,14 Jay P Heiken,15 Marc Kohli,16 David T Fetzer,17 Stephanie R Wilson,18 Zahra Kassam,19 Mishal Mendiratta-Lala,5 Amit G Singal,17 Christopher S Lim,20 Irene Cruite,21 James Lee,22 Ryan Ash,23 Donald G Mitchell,14 Matthew DF McInnes,24 Claude B Sirlin9 1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; 2Department of Radiology, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 4Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 5Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 6Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA; 7Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA; 8Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; 9Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, CA, USA; 10Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada; 11Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced Magnetic Resonance Development, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 12Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 13Department of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 14Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 15Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 16Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA; 17Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; 18Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 19Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Schulich School of Medicine, London, ON, Canada; 20Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; 21Department of Radiology, Inland Imaging, Spokane, WA, USA; 22Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 23Department of Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA; 24Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada Abstract: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS®) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver observations in individuals at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS is supported and endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Upon its initial release in 2011, LI-RADS applied only to liver observations identified at CT or MRI. It has since been refined and expanded over multiple updates to now also address ultrasound-based surveillance, contrast-enhanced ultrasound for HCC diagnosis, and CT/MRI for assessing treatment response after locoregional therapy. The LI-RADS 2018 version was integrated into the HCC diagnosis, staging, and management practice guidance of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). This article reviews the major LI-RADS updates since its 2011 inception and provides an overview of the currently published LI-RADS algorithms. Keywords: LI-RADS, v2018, CT, MRI, CEUS, US, HCC, liver imaging, reporting, cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE The benefit of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) against HCV following successful treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis of individual patient data assessed HCC recurrence risk following DAA administration. DESIGN We pooled the data of 977 consecutive patients from 21 studies of HCV-related cirrhosis and HCC, who achieved complete radiological response after surgical/locoregional treatments and received DAAs (DAA group). Recurrence or death risk was expressed as HCC recurrence or death per 100 person-years (100PY). Propensity score-matched patients from the ITA.LI.CA. cohort (n=328) served as DAA-unexposed controls (no-DAA group). Risk factors for HCC recurrence were identified using random-effects Poisson. RESULTS Recurrence rate and death risk per 100PY in DAA-treated patients were 20 (95% CI 13.9 to 29.8, I2=74.6%) and 5.7 (2.5 to 15.3, I2=54.3), respectively. Predictive factors for recurrence were alpha-fetoprotein logarithm (relative risk (RR)=1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19; p=0.01, per 1 log of ng/mL), HCC recurrence history pre-DAA initiation (RR=1.11, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.16; p