Omar Hyder1, Rebecca M Dodson1, Matthew Weiss1, David P Cosgrove2, Joseph M Herman3, Jean-Francois H Geschwind4, Ihab R Kamel4, Timothy M Pawlik1. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Blalock 688 600N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Blalock 688 600N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Blalock 688 600N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Blalock 688 600N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the patterns of utilization of surveillance imaging after treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to define population-based patterns of surveillance and investigate if intensity of surveillance impacted outcome following HCC treatment. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify patients with HCC diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 who underwent resection, ablation, or intra-arterial therapy (IAT). The association between imaging frequency and long-term survival was analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 1,467 patients, most underwent ablation only (41.5%), while fewer underwent liver resection only (29.6 %) or IAT only (18.3%). Most patients had at least one CT scan (92.7%) during follow-up, while fewer had an MRI (34.1%). A temporal trend was noted with more frequent surveillance imaging obtained in post-treatment year 1 (2.5 scans/year) vs. year 5 (0.9 scans/year; P = 0.01); 34.5% of alive patients had no imaging after 2 years. Frequency of surveillance imaging correlated with procedure type (total number of scans/5 years, resection, 4.7; ablation, 4.9; IAT, 3.7; P < 0.001). Frequency of surveillance imaging was not associated with a survival benefit (three to four scans/year, 49.5 months vs. two scans/year, 71.7 months vs. one scan/year, 67.6 months; P = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Marked heterogeneity exists in how often surveillance imaging is obtained following treatment of HCC. Higher intensity imaging does not confer a survival benefit.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the patterns of utilization of surveillance imaging after treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to define population-based patterns of surveillance and investigate if intensity of surveillance impacted outcome following HCC treatment. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify patients with HCC diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 who underwent resection, ablation, or intra-arterial therapy (IAT). The association between imaging frequency and long-term survival was analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 1,467 patients, most underwent ablation only (41.5%), while fewer underwent liver resection only (29.6 %) or IAT only (18.3%). Most patients had at least one CT scan (92.7%) during follow-up, while fewer had an MRI (34.1%). A temporal trend was noted with more frequent surveillance imaging obtained in post-treatment year 1 (2.5 scans/year) vs. year 5 (0.9 scans/year; P = 0.01); 34.5% of alive patients had no imaging after 2 years. Frequency of surveillance imaging correlated with procedure type (total number of scans/5 years, resection, 4.7; ablation, 4.9; IAT, 3.7; P < 0.001). Frequency of surveillance imaging was not associated with a survival benefit (three to four scans/year, 49.5 months vs. two scans/year, 71.7 months vs. one scan/year, 67.6 months; P = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Marked heterogeneity exists in how often surveillance imaging is obtained following treatment of HCC. Higher intensity imaging does not confer a survival benefit.
Authors: Kristin M Sheffield; Kristen T Crowell; Yu-Li Lin; Clarisse Djukom; James S Goodwin; Taylor S Riall Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Al B Benson; Thomas A Abrams; Edgar Ben-Josef; P Mark Bloomston; Jean F Botha; Bryan M Clary; Anne Covey; Steven A Curley; Michael I D'Angelica; Rene Davila; William D Ensminger; John F Gibbs; Daniel Laheru; Mokenge P Malafa; Jorge Marrero; Steven G Meranze; Sean J Mulvihill; James O Park; James A Posey; Jasgit Sachdev; Riad Salem; Elin R Sigurdson; Constantinos Sofocleous; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Alan P Venook; Laura Williams Goff; Yun Yen; Andrew X Zhu Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Lesley H Curtis; Bradley G Hammill; Edward F Patz; Amy P Abernethy; Alisa M Shea; Kevin A Schulman Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elan R Witkowski; Jillian K Smith; Elizaveta Ragulin-Coyne; Sing-Chau Ng; Shimul A Shah; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Eric Johnson; Choonsik Lee; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael Flynn; Robert T Greenlee; Randell L Kruger; Mark C Hornbrook; Douglas Roblin; Leif I Solberg; Nicholas Vanneman; Sheila Weinmann; Andrew E Williams Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; J Madison Hyer; Amblessed E Onuma; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Amblessed E Onuma; Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; Jeffery Chakedis; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Brianne Wiemann; Morgan Johnson; Katiuscha Merath; Ozgur Akgul; Jordan Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Stephen H Gray; Jared A White; Peng Li; Meredith L Kilgore; David T Redden; Ahmed K Abdel Aal; Heather N Simpson; Brendan McGuire; Devin E Eckhoff; Derek A Dubay Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Jae H Yoon; Young J Goo; Chae-Jun Lim; Sung K Choi; Sung B Cho; Sang S Shin; Chung H Jun Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 5.742