BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend routine screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients, but the strength of evidence supporting these recommendations is unclear. PURPOSE: To review the benefits and harms of HCC screening in patients with chronic liver disease. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2014; Cochrane databases to June 2013; reference lists; and technical advisors. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and observational studies comparing screening versus no screening, studies of harms, and trials comparing different screening intervals. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality and adverse events were the outcomes of interest. Individual-study quality and the overall strength of evidence were dual-reviewed using published criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 13,801 citations, 22 studies met inclusion criteria. The overall strength of evidence on the effects of screening was very low. One large trial of patients with hepatitis B found decreased HCC mortality with periodic ultrasonographic screening (rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.98]), but the study was limited by methodological flaws. Another trial in patients with hepatitis B found no survival benefit with periodic α-fetoprotein screening. In 18 observational studies, screened patients had earlier-stage HCC than clinically diagnosed patients, but lead- and length-time biases confounded the effects on mortality. Two trials found no survival differences between shorter (3- to 4-month) and longer (6- to 12-month) screening intervals. Harms of screening were not well-studied. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The evidence base is limited by methodological issues and a paucity of trials. CONCLUSION: There is very-low-strength evidence about the effects of HCC screening on mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. Screening tests can identify early-stage HCC, but whether systematic screening leads to a survival advantage over clinical diagnosis is uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend routine screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients, but the strength of evidence supporting these recommendations is unclear. PURPOSE: To review the benefits and harms of HCC screening in patients with chronic liver disease. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to April 2014; Cochrane databases to June 2013; reference lists; and technical advisors. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and observational studies comparing screening versus no screening, studies of harms, and trials comparing different screening intervals. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality and adverse events were the outcomes of interest. Individual-study quality and the overall strength of evidence were dual-reviewed using published criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 13,801 citations, 22 studies met inclusion criteria. The overall strength of evidence on the effects of screening was very low. One large trial of patients with hepatitis B found decreased HCC mortality with periodic ultrasonographic screening (rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.98]), but the study was limited by methodological flaws. Another trial in patients with hepatitis B found no survival benefit with periodic α-fetoprotein screening. In 18 observational studies, screened patients had earlier-stage HCC than clinically diagnosed patients, but lead- and length-time biases confounded the effects on mortality. Two trials found no survival differences between shorter (3- to 4-month) and longer (6- to 12-month) screening intervals. Harms of screening were not well-studied. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The evidence base is limited by methodological issues and a paucity of trials. CONCLUSION: There is very-low-strength evidence about the effects of HCC screening on mortality in patients with chronic liver disease. Screening tests can identify early-stage HCC, but whether systematic screening leads to a survival advantage over clinical diagnosis is uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.
Authors: Andrew M Moon; Noel S Weiss; Lauren A Beste; Feng Su; Samuel B Ho; Ga-Young Jin; Elliott Lowy; Kristin Berry; George N Ioannou Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 22.682