INTRODUCTION: Real-world management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is crucially challenging in the current rapidly evolving clinical environment which includes the need for respecting patient preferences and autonomy. In this context, regional/national treatment guidelines nuanced to local demographics have increasing importance in guiding disease management. We report here real-world data on clinical outcomes in HCC from a validation of the Consensus Guidelines for HCC at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS). METHOD: We evaluated the NCCS guidelines using prospectively collected real-world data, comparing the efficacy of treatment received using overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Treatment outcomes were also independently evaluated against 2 external sets of guidelines, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC). RESULTS: Overall treatment compliance to the NCCS guidelines was 79.2%. Superior median OS was observed in patients receiving treatment compliant with NCCS guidelines for early (nonestimable vs. 23.5 months p < 0.0001), locally advanced (28.1 vs. 22.2 months p = 0.0216) and locally advanced with macrovascular invasion (10.3 vs. 3.3 months p = 0.0013) but not for metastatic HCC (8.1 vs. 6.8 months p = 0.6300), but PFS was similar. Better clinical outcomes were seen in BCLC C patients who received treatment compliant with NCCS guidelines than in patients with treatment only allowed by BCLC guidelines (median OS 14.2 vs. 7.4 months p = 0.0002; median PFS 6.1 vs. 4.0 months p = 0.0286). Clinical outcomes were, however, similar for patients across all HKLC stages receiving NCCS-recommended treatment regardless of whether their treatment was allowed by HKLC. CONCLUSION: The high overall compliance rate and satisfactory clinical outcomes of patients managed according to the NCCS guidelines confirm its validity. This validation using real-world data considers patient and treating clinician preferences, thus providing a realistic analysis of the usefulness of the NCCS guidelines when applied in the clinics.
INTRODUCTION: Real-world management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is crucially challenging in the current rapidly evolving clinical environment which includes the need for respecting patient preferences and autonomy. In this context, regional/national treatment guidelines nuanced to local demographics have increasing importance in guiding disease management. We report here real-world data on clinical outcomes in HCC from a validation of the Consensus Guidelines for HCC at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS). METHOD: We evaluated the NCCS guidelines using prospectively collected real-world data, comparing the efficacy of treatment received using overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Treatment outcomes were also independently evaluated against 2 external sets of guidelines, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC). RESULTS: Overall treatment compliance to the NCCS guidelines was 79.2%. Superior median OS was observed in patients receiving treatment compliant with NCCS guidelines for early (nonestimable vs. 23.5 months p < 0.0001), locally advanced (28.1 vs. 22.2 months p = 0.0216) and locally advanced with macrovascular invasion (10.3 vs. 3.3 months p = 0.0013) but not for metastatic HCC (8.1 vs. 6.8 months p = 0.6300), but PFS was similar. Better clinical outcomes were seen in BCLC C patients who received treatment compliant with NCCS guidelines than in patients with treatment only allowed by BCLC guidelines (median OS 14.2 vs. 7.4 months p = 0.0002; median PFS 6.1 vs. 4.0 months p = 0.0286). Clinical outcomes were, however, similar for patients across all HKLC stages receiving NCCS-recommended treatment regardless of whether their treatment was allowed by HKLC. CONCLUSION: The high overall compliance rate and satisfactory clinical outcomes of patients managed according to the NCCS guidelines confirm its validity. This validation using real-world data considers patient and treating clinician preferences, thus providing a realistic analysis of the usefulness of the NCCS guidelines when applied in the clinics.
Authors: Lung-Yi Mak; Vania Cruz-Ramón; Paulina Chinchilla-López; Harrys A Torres; Noelle K LoConte; John P Rice; Lewis E Foxhall; Erich M Sturgis; Janette K Merrill; Howard H Bailey; Nahum Méndez-Sánchez; Man-Fung Yuen; Jessica P Hwang Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2018-05-23
Authors: Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Riad Salem; Ahmed Gabr; Ahsun Riaz; Ronald Mora; Rehan Ali; Michael Abecassis; Ryan Hickey; Laura Kulik; Daniel Ganger; Steven Flamm; Rohi Atassi; Bassel Atassi; Kent Sato; Al B Benson; Mary F Mulcahy; Nadine Abouchaleh; Ali Al Asadi; Kush Desai; Bartley Thornburg; Michael Vouche; Ali Habib; Juan Caicedo; Frank H Miller; Vahid Yaghmai; Joseph R Kallini; Samdeep Mouli; Robert J Lewandowski Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ian J Y Wee; Fiona N N Moe; Rehena Sultana; Reiko W T Ang; Pearly P S Quek; Brian Kim Poh Goh; Chung Yip Chan; Peng Chung Cheow; Alexander Y F Chung; Prema Raj Jeyaraj; Ye Xin Koh; Peter O P Mack; London Lucien P J Ooi; Ek Khoon Tan; Jin Yao Teo; Juinn Huar Kam; Jacelyn S S Chua; Ashley W Y Ng; Jade S Q Goh; Pierce K H Chow Journal: J Hepatocell Carcinoma Date: 2022-08-17