Gamal Shiha1,2, Nabiel N H Mikhail3,4, Reham Soliman3,5, Ayman Hassan3, Mohammed Eslam6. 1. Egyptian Liver Research Institute and Hospital (ELRIAH), Sherbin, Mansoura, Egypt. g_shiha@hotmail.com. 2. Hepatology and Gastroenterology Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. g_shiha@hotmail.com. 3. Egyptian Liver Research Institute and Hospital (ELRIAH), Sherbin, Mansoura, Egypt. 4. Biostatistics and Cancer Epidemiology Department, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. 5. Tropical Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Port Said University, Port Said, Egypt. 6. Storr Liver Centre, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Many HCC risk prediction scores were developed to guide HCC risk stratification and identify CHC patients who either need intensified surveillance or may not require screening. There is a need to compare different scores and their predictive performance in clinical practice. We aim to compare the newest HCC risk scores evaluating their discriminative ability, and clinical utility in a large cohort of CHC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The performance of the scores was evaluated in 3075 CHC patients who achieved SVR following DAAs using Log rank, Harrell's c statistic, also tested for HCC-risk stratification and negative predictive values. RESULTS: HCC developed in 212 patients within 5 years follow-up. Twelve HCC risk scores were identified and displayed significant Log rank (p ≤ 0.05) except Alonso-Lopez TE-HCC, and Chun scores (p = 0.374, p = 0.053, respectively). Analysis of the remaining ten scores revealed that ADRES, GES pre-post treatment, GES algorithm and Watanabe (post-treatment) scores including dynamics of AFP, were clinically applicable and demonstrated good statistical performance; Log rank analysis < 0.001, Harrell's C statistic (0.66-0.83) and high negative predictive values (94.38-97.65%). In these three scores, the 5 years cumulative IR in low risk groups be very low (0.54-1.6), so screening could be avoided safely in these patients. CONCLUSION: ADRES, GES (pre- and post-treatment), GES algorithm and Watanabe (post-treatment) scores seem to offer acceptable HCC-risk predictability and clinical utility in CHC patients. The dynamics of AFP as a component of these scores may explain their high performance when compared to other scores.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Many HCC risk prediction scores were developed to guide HCC risk stratification and identify CHC patients who either need intensified surveillance or may not require screening. There is a need to compare different scores and their predictive performance in clinical practice. We aim to compare the newest HCC risk scores evaluating their discriminative ability, and clinical utility in a large cohort of CHC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The performance of the scores was evaluated in 3075 CHC patients who achieved SVR following DAAs using Log rank, Harrell's c statistic, also tested for HCC-risk stratification and negative predictive values. RESULTS: HCC developed in 212 patients within 5 years follow-up. Twelve HCC risk scores were identified and displayed significant Log rank (p ≤ 0.05) except Alonso-Lopez TE-HCC, and Chun scores (p = 0.374, p = 0.053, respectively). Analysis of the remaining ten scores revealed that ADRES, GES pre-post treatment, GES algorithm and Watanabe (post-treatment) scores including dynamics of AFP, were clinically applicable and demonstrated good statistical performance; Log rank analysis < 0.001, Harrell's C statistic (0.66-0.83) and high negative predictive values (94.38-97.65%). In these three scores, the 5 years cumulative IR in low risk groups be very low (0.54-1.6), so screening could be avoided safely in these patients. CONCLUSION: ADRES, GES (pre- and post-treatment), GES algorithm and Watanabe (post-treatment) scores seem to offer acceptable HCC-risk predictability and clinical utility in CHC patients. The dynamics of AFP as a component of these scores may explain their high performance when compared to other scores.
Authors: Julie K Heimbach; Laura M Kulik; Richard S Finn; Claude B Sirlin; Michael M Abecassis; Lewis R Roberts; Andrew X Zhu; M Hassan Murad; Jorge A Marrero Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Darrick K Li; Yanjie Ren; Daniel S Fierer; Stephanie Rutledge; Obaid S Shaikh; Vincent Lo Re; Tracey Simon; Abdul-Badi Abou-Samra; Raymond T Chung; Adeel A Butt Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Sahil Mittal; Fasiha Kanwal; Jun Ying; Randy Chung; Yvonne H Sada; Sarah Temple; Jessica A Davila; Hashem B El-Serag Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 25.083