FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2085355341> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2085355341 endingPage "163" @default.
• W2085355341 startingPage "161" @default.
• W2085355341 abstract "Hepatic OncologyVol. 1, No. 2 EditorialFree AccessLimitations of screening for hepatocellular carcinomaMorris ShermanMorris ShermanDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, 9N985, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. Search for more papers by this authorEmail the corresponding author at morris.sherman@uhn.on.caPublished Online:20 Mar 2014https://doi.org/10.2217/hep.13.22AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening has become common practice and has been shown to be highly successful in good hands. In Japan, more than 60% of all HCCs are discovered when they are smaller than 2 cm [1]. In Europe, one report indicates that 74% of screen-detected HCCs are smaller than 3 cm [2]. These are easily treated and can be cured. However, not all patients who develop HCC while undergoing screening have a good outcome. A significant proportion of these patients will still die either from their HCC or from the underlying liver disease.Many authors have emphasized that screening consists of more than just tests. There should be a process that includes identification of the at-risk group(s), application of the test, appropriate recall procedures and a process in place to manage diseases discovered by screening. For best results screening should be carried out as a controlled program, rather than on an ad hoc basis.Thus, failure of HCC screening can be looked at from the point of view of the program, or from the point of view of the individual who suffered a failure of screening.Failure of screening in an individual patient essentially means failure of the screening tests to detect the HCC at a curable stage or failure to properly interpret the screening test results (recall procedures), or failure to apply the appropriate treatment for that stage of disease at a timely interval after detection.Studies of resection and local ablation suggest that the likelihood of cure starts to diminish once the HCC is between 2 and 2.5 cm in diameter [3–5]. Therefore, the target size lesion that screening should detect is below approximately 2.5 cm. To be useful, a screening test should be able to find most lesions smaller than this size. Failure of the screening test to identify such a small cancer that is present and may be curable may be due to inadequate sensitivity of the screening test, too long an interval between screening tests, development of an aggressive cancer that exhibits microvascular invasion and/or metastasis even while still small, or to an infiltrative tumor that does not form a clearly identifiable lesion.The serological screening tests are AFP concentration, des-γ-carboxy prothrombin and the L3 fraction of AFP. However, many studies have shown that these are insufficiently sensitive tests, picking up no more than approximately 60% of small HCCs [6–15]. As the HCC gets larger the likelihood of any of the tests being elevated increases, but even at a tumor size of >5 cm the sensitivity is less than optimal. AFP is the most commonly used, but is the least sensitive. Furthermore, all three of these tests also identify advanced HCC with a poor prognosis. A test that indicates advanced disease cannot also be a marker of early-stage disease.The recommended screening test is ultrasound. The sensitivity of ultrasound in a noncirrhotic liver is better than 80% [16], but for small HCC the sensitivity falls to approximately 60%. There is some controversy as to whether the addition of biomarkers to ultrasound enhances detection. Studies in Japan using ultrasound and biomarkers have approximately the same detection rate as in Europe without biomarkers [1,2].There are well-known factors that limit the sensitivity of ultrasound, most importantly, fatty liver, with or without obesity. The presence of fat attenuates the ultrasound beam, so that the beam is less able to penetrate the full substance of the liver. Typically, the parts of the liver most distant from the probe – that is, posteriorly and superiorly – are not well seen. Cirrhosis, with the presence of multiple nodules, also makes it difficult to determine whether any of the nodules are suspicious for HCC.Finally, good ultrasound is technically demanding. Cursory examination will miss important lesions. Poor technique is probably the most important cause of failure of ultrasound to detect the presence of a significant nodule. However, CT scan or MRI is not the answer. Although these are more sensitive than ultrasound and do not suffer from the problems of fat or cirrhosis, they are not suitable for HCC screening. CT scan without contrast is probably not more sensitive than ultrasound, and may even be less sensitive. If only arterial or venous phase imaging is performed important diagnostic lesion characteristics will be missed. For best sensitivity and specificity a four-phase CT scan is required [17]. Thus, screening would entail essentially four CT scan runs twice a year, possibly for many years. The radiation dose would be significant. We worry less about the radiation dose in patients who have HCC, but in patients not known to have HCC and who may never get HCC it is questionable whether the radiation dose is justified. MRI does not involve radiation. More recently, MRI hepatobiliary phase imaging contrast agents have been used for HCC diagnosis. The value of these agents as screening tests has not been evaluated. However, both CT scan and MRI are very costly, with a very high incremental cost–efficacy ratio, making them economically unfeasible [18].Irregular screening is another cause of failure to detect small HCC. The ideal interval between screening tests is not known. The interval depends on the time it takes for a tumor to grow from being undetectable to being incurable. Since growth rates vary, and neither curability of small lesions, nor incurability of larger lesions are 100% predictable, identification of the appropriate screening interval for an individual patient is not possible. However, studies have suggested that a 6-month interval is the most appropriate balance between too many false positives and too many missed opportunities for cure.Another reason for failure of screening at a personal level is failure to adequately investigate screen-detected lesions. This surprisingly common. Physicians may not immediately investigate screen-detected lesions, preferring to monitor progress. Decision analysis, however, has indicated that this is the least effective option [19]. The analysis found that a delay in the investigation of screen-detected lesions increased the risk of diagnosis at a stage associated with less than optimal cure rates.The final reason for failure of HCC screening at an individual level is failure to offer appropriate treatment. This is uncommon with small HCC, which approximately responds equally well to local ablation, resection or transplantation. However, detection of HCC at a later stage (e.g., >2 cm) is less forgiving if the wrong treatment is offered. Local ablation is less effective at these tumor sizes, and resection or transplantation might offer better survival. However, local ablation, usually radiofrequency ablation, continues to be offered to such patients.Screening programs fail when the population being screened does not have a risk high enough to warrant screening. Although groups at risk for HCC have been defined, the majority of people in those groups will not develop HCC. More recently, risk scores have been developed that allow identification of those at lower risk within the larger at-risk groups, who can be withdrawn from screening programs.Screening programs will also fail if overdiagnosis is prevalent – that is, the diagnosis of a lesion as cancer when it is unlikely to cause the patient’s death. Overdiagnosis is an inevitable consequence of screening, but it is likely that overdiagnosis plays only a small role in HCC screening. Furthermore, the algorithm described in the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines [20], and which has been validated [21–23], minimizes the likelihood of overdiagnosis by requiring either histology or classical radiological appearances of HCC for confirmation of the diagnosis.Therefore, it can be seen that screening for HCC may fail on several levels. It is easy to understand failure of screening of an individual patient, but factors leading to failure of a screening program are less well recognized, but equally as important.Financial & competing interests disclosureThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1 Izumi N. Diagnostic and treatment algorithm of the Japanese society of hepatology: a consensus-based practice guideline. Oncology78(Suppl. 1),78–86 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Trinchet JC, Chaffaut C, Bourcier V et al. Ultrasonographic surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: a randomized trial comparing 3- and 6-month periodicities. Hepatology54,1987–1997 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Ikai I, Arii S, Kojiro M et al. Reevaluation of prognostic factors for survival after liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in a Japanese nationwide survey. Cancer101(4),796–802 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Shah SA, Cleary SP, Wei AC et al. Recurrence after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: risk factors, treatment, and outcomes. Surgery141(3),330–339 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Sala M, Llovet JM, Vilana R et al.; Barcelona Clínic Liver Cancer Group. Initial response to percutaneous ablation predicts survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology40(6),1352–1360 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Farinati F, Marino D, De Giorgio M et al. Diagnostic and prognostic role of alpha-fetoprotein in hepatocellular carcinoma: both or neither? Am. J. Gastroenterol.101(3),524–532 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar7 Trevisani F, D’Intino PE, Morselli-Labate AM et al. Serum alpha-fetoprotein for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: influence of HBsAg and anti-HCV status. J. Hepatol.34(4),570–575 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar8 Tong MJ, Blatt LM, Kao VW. Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic viral hepatitis in the United States of America. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.16(5),553–559 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar9 Gambarin-Gelwan M, Wolf DC, Shapiro R, Schwartz ME, Min AD. Sensitivity of commonly available screening tests in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver transplantation. Am. J. Gastroenterol.95(6),1535–1538 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar10 Sterling RK, Jeffers L, Gordon F et al. Utility of Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of alpha-fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin, alone or in combination, as biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.7(1),104–113 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar11 Sterling RK, Jeffers L, Gordon F et al. Clinical utility of AFP-L3% measurement in North American patients with HCV-related cirrhosis. Am. J. Gastroenterol.102(10),2196–2205 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12 Marrero JA, Feng Z, Wang Y et al. Alpha-fetoprotein, des-gamma carboxyprothrombin, and lectin-bound alpha-fetoprotein in early hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology137(1),110–118 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar13 Sterling RK, Wright EC, Morgan TR et al. Frequency of elevated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) biomarkers in patients with advanced hepatitis C. Am. J. Gastroenterol.107(1),64–74 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar14 Lok AS, Sterling RK, Everhart JE et al.; HALT-C Trial Group. Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin and alpha-fetoprotein as biomarkers for the early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology138(2),493–502 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar15 Singal A, Volk ML, Waljee A et al. Meta-analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol. Ther.30(1),37–47 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar16 Singal AG, Nehra M, Adams-Huet B et al. Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at advanced stages among patients in the HALT-C trial: where did surveillance fail? Am. J. Gastroenterol.108(3),425–432 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17 Furlan A, Marin D, Vanzulli A et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients at multidetector CT: hepatic venous phase versus delayed phase for the detection of tumour washout. Br. J. Radiol.84(1001),403–412 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar18 Andersson KL, Salomon JA, Goldie SJ, Chung RT. Cost effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.6(12),1418–1424 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19 Bremner KE, Bayoumi AM, Sherman M, Krahn MD. Management of solitary 1 cm to 2 cm liver nodules in patients with compensated cirrhosis: a decision analysis. Can. J. Gastroenterol.21,491–500 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20 Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology53,1020–1022 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar21 Furlan A, Marin D, Cabassa P et al. Enhancement pattern of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), MDCT, and MRI: intermodality agreement and comparison of diagnostic sensitivity between 2005 and 2010 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines. Eur. J. Radiol.81(9),2099–2105 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar22 Khalili K, Kim TK, Jang HJ, Yazdi LK, Guindi M, Sherman M. Indeterminate 1–2-cm nodules found on hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: biopsy for all, some, or none? Hepatology54(6),2048–2054 (2011).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar23 Sangiovanni A, Manini MA, Iavarone M et al. The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Gut59(5),638–644 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByQuality of Cancer Care in Patients with Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma4 August 2015 | Current Gastroenterology Reports, Vol. 17, No. 9 Vol. 1, No. 2 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics Downloaded 372 times History Published online 20 March 2014 Published in print April 2014 Information© Future Medicine LtdFinancial & competing interests disclosureThe author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download" @default.
• W2085355341 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2085355341 creator A5052025506 @default.
• W2085355341 date "2014-04-01" @default.
• W2085355341 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2085355341 title "Limitations of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma" @default.
• W2085355341 cites W112319137 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1964042756 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1976559240 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1977756844 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1992716790 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1993177012 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1995180061 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1996109529 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W1999421234 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2000001318 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2000681830 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2003382826 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2004974457 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2008615142 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2024115415 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2048436671 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2061542009 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2076007540 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2087238991 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2128551196 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2163403599 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2169549171 @default.
• W2085355341 cites W2171104739 @default.
• W2085355341 doi "https://doi.org/10.2217/hep.13.22" @default.
• W2085355341 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6096434" @default.
• W2085355341 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30190948" @default.
• W2085355341 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2085355341 type Work @default.
• W2085355341 sameAs 2085355341 @default.
• W2085355341 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2085355341 countsByYear W20853553412015 @default.
• W2085355341 countsByYear W20853553412022 @default.
• W2085355341 countsByYear W20853553412023 @default.
• W2085355341 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2085355341 hasAuthorship W2085355341A5052025506 @default.
• W2085355341 hasBestOaLocation W20853553412 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConcept C2778019345 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConceptScore W2085355341C126322002 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConceptScore W2085355341C143998085 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConceptScore W2085355341C2778019345 @default.
• W2085355341 hasConceptScore W2085355341C71924100 @default.
• W2085355341 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2085355341 hasLocation W20853553411 @default.
• W2085355341 hasLocation W20853553412 @default.
• W2085355341 hasLocation W20853553413 @default.
• W2085355341 hasLocation W20853553414 @default.
• W2085355341 hasOpenAccess W2085355341 @default.
• W2085355341 hasPrimaryLocation W20853553411 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W1972665675 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W2327375634 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W2790853126 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W2938267598 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W3151326415 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W3171402486 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W4232617294 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W4240236077 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W4323536446 @default.
• W2085355341 hasRelatedWork W4361955619 @default.
• W2085355341 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W2085355341 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2085355341 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2085355341 magId "2085355341" @default.
• W2085355341 workType "article" @default.