OBJECTIVES: Only 40% of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed at an early stage, suggesting breakdowns in the surveillance process. The aim of our study was to assess the reasons behind surveillance process failures among patients in the Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment against Cirrhosis Trial (HALT-C), which prospectively collected HCC surveillance data on a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Binary regression analysis was used to identify predictors of consistent surveillance, which was defined as having an ultrasound and alpha-fetoprotein every 12 months. Surveillance failures among patients who developed HCC were classified into one of three categories: absence of screening, absence of follow-up, or absence of detection. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 6.1 years, 692 (68.9%) of 1,005 patients had consistent surveillance. Study site was the strongest predictor of consistent surveillance (P<0.001). After adjusting for study site, patient-level predictors of consistent surveillance included platelet count >150,000/mm(3) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.56) and complete clinic visit adherence (HR 1.72, 95% CI: 1.11-2.63). Of 83 patients with HCC, 23 (27.7%) were detected beyond Milan criteria. Three (13%) had late-stage HCC due to the absence of screening, 4 (17%) due to the absence of follow-up, and 16 (70%) due to the absence of detection. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance process failures, including absence of screening or follow-up, are common and potentially contribute to late-stage tumors in one-third of cases. However, the most common reason for finding HCC at a late stage was an absence of detection, suggesting better surveillance strategies are needed.
OBJECTIVES: Only 40% of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed at an early stage, suggesting breakdowns in the surveillance process. The aim of our study was to assess the reasons behind surveillance process failures among patients in the Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment against Cirrhosis Trial (HALT-C), which prospectively collected HCC surveillance data on a large cohort of patients. METHODS: Binary regression analysis was used to identify predictors of consistent surveillance, which was defined as having an ultrasound and alpha-fetoprotein every 12 months. Surveillance failures among patients who developed HCC were classified into one of three categories: absence of screening, absence of follow-up, or absence of detection. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 6.1 years, 692 (68.9%) of 1,005 patients had consistent surveillance. Study site was the strongest predictor of consistent surveillance (P<0.001). After adjusting for study site, patient-level predictors of consistent surveillance included platelet count >150,000/mm(3) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.56) and complete clinic visit adherence (HR 1.72, 95% CI: 1.11-2.63). Of 83 patients with HCC, 23 (27.7%) were detected beyond Milan criteria. Three (13%) had late-stage HCC due to the absence of screening, 4 (17%) due to the absence of follow-up, and 16 (70%) due to the absence of detection. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance process failures, including absence of screening or follow-up, are common and potentially contribute to late-stage tumors in one-third of cases. However, the most common reason for finding HCC at a late stage was an absence of detection, suggesting better surveillance strategies are needed.
Authors: J M Llovet; J Bustamante; A Castells; R Vilana; M del C Ayuso; M Sala; C Brú; J Rodés; J Bruix Journal: Hepatology Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Jessica A Davila; Robert O Morgan; Peter A Richardson; Xianglin L Du; Katherine A McGlynn; Hashem B El-Serag Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Amit G Singal; Michael L Volk; Mina O Rakoski; Sherry Fu; Grace L Su; Heather McCurdy; Jorge A Marrero Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; M Michele Manos; Ann M Geiger; Sheila Weinmann; Joyce Gilbert; Judy Mouchawar; Wendy A Leyden; Robin Altaras; Robert K Beverly; Deborah Casso; Emily Oakes Westbrook; Kimberly Bischoff; Jane G Zapka; William E Barlow Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-10-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jessica A Davila; Louise Henderson; Jennifer R Kramer; Fasiha Kanwal; Peter A Richardson; Zhigang Duan; Hashem B El-Serag Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Amit G Singal; Adam C Yopp; Samir Gupta; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Eucharia Okolo; Mahendra Nehra; William M Lee; Jorge A Marrero; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2012-07-30
Authors: Amit G Singal; Akbar K Waljee; Nishant Patel; Emerson Y Chen; Jasmin A Tiro; Jorge A Marrero; Adam C Yopp Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Purva Gopal; Adam C Yopp; Akbar K Waljee; Jason Chiang; Mahendra Nehra; Pragathi Kandunoori; Amit G Singal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Patrick J Killela; Zachary J Reitman; Yuchen Jiao; Chetan Bettegowda; Nishant Agrawal; Luis A Diaz; Allan H Friedman; Henry Friedman; Gary L Gallia; Beppino C Giovanella; Arthur P Grollman; Tong-Chuan He; Yiping He; Ralph H Hruban; George I Jallo; Nils Mandahl; Alan K Meeker; Fredrik Mertens; George J Netto; B Ahmed Rasheed; Gregory J Riggins; Thomas A Rosenquist; Mark Schiffman; Ie-Ming Shih; Dan Theodorescu; Michael S Torbenson; Victor E Velculescu; Tian-Li Wang; Nicolas Wentzensen; Laura D Wood; Ming Zhang; Roger E McLendon; Darell D Bigner; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Hai Yan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 11.205