4.8 Article

HCC risk stratification after cure of hepatitis C in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 4, Pages 812-821

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.025

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; hepatitis C; cACLD; SVR; surveillance

Funding

  1. Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of the City of Vienna [17035]
  2. Andrew K. Burroughs short-term training fellowship of the European Association for the Study of the Liver

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study developed risk stratification algorithms for de novo HCC development after SVR in patients with ACLD. Parameters such as post-treatment AFP, alcohol consumption, age, LSM, and albumin accurately predicted de novo HCC development and stratified patients into low- and high-risk groups. These algorithms identified approximately two-thirds of patients with cACLD as having a low risk of <1%/year for HCC development, showing effectiveness in risk assessment and surveillance.
Background & Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) caused by chronic hepatitis C who have achieved sustained virologic response (SVR). We developed risk stratification algorithms for de novo HCC development after SVR and validated them in an independent cohort. Methods: We evaluated the occurrence of de novo HCC in a derivation cohort of 527 patients with pre-treatment ACLD and SVR to interferon-free therapy, in whom alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and non-invasive surrogates of portal hypertension including liver stiffness measurement (LSM) were assessed pre-/post-treatment. We validated our results in 1,500 patients with compensated ACLD (cACLD) from other European centers. Results: During a median follow-up (FU) of 41 months, 22/475 patients with cACLD (4.6%, 1.45/100 patient-years) vs. 12/52 decompensated patients (23.1%, 7.00/100 patient-years, p <0.001) developed de novo HCC. Since decompensated patients were at substantial HCC risk, we focused on cACLD for all further analyses. In cACLD, post-treatment-values showed a higher discriminative ability for patients with/without de novo HCC development during FU than pre-treatment values or absolute/relative changes. Models based on post-treatment AFP, alcohol consumption (optional), age, LSM, and albumin, accurately predicted de novo HCC development (bootstrapped Harrel's C with/without considering alcohol: 0.893/0.836). Importantly, these parameters also provided independent prognostic information in competing risk analysis and accurately stratified patients into low- (similar to 2/3 of patients) and high-risk (similar to 1/3 of patients) groups in the derivation (algorithm with alcohol consumption; 4-year HCC-risk: 0% vs. 16.5%) and validation (3.3% vs. 17.5%) cohorts. An alternative approach based on alcohol consumption (optional), age, LSM, and albumin (i.e., without AFP) also showed a robust performance. Conclusions: Simple algorithms based on post-treatment age/albumin/LSM, and optionally, AFP and alcohol consumption, accurately stratified patients with cACLD based on their risk of de novo HCC after SVR. Approximately two-thirds were identified as having an HCC risk <1%/year in both the derivation and validation cohort, thereby clearly falling below the cost-effectiveness threshold for HCC surveillance. Lay summary: Simple algorithms based on age, alcohol consumption, results of blood tests (albumin and alpha-fetoprotein), as well as liver stiffness measurement after the end of hepatitis C treatment identify a large proportion (approximately two-thirds) of patients with advanced but still asymptomatic liver disease who are at very low risk (<1%/year) of liver cancer development, and thus, might not need to undergo 6-monthly liver ultrasound. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available