4.7 Review

Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Spontaneous Clearance of Hepatitis C Virus and in Noncirrhosis Chronic Hepatitis C Patients With Sustained Virological Response: A Systematic Review

Journal

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages S245-S256

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciad380

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma risk; hepatitis C; noncirrhosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a hepatitis C virus (HCV)-controlled human infection model (CHIM), researchers assessed the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after viral clearance in noncirrhosis patients with sustained virological response (SVR) to HCV treatment. The overall HCC rate in noncirrhosis SVR patients was 0.33 per 100 patient-years. The data suggests that the risk of HCC in the HCV CHIM is very low or negligible.
In a hepatitis C virus (HCV)-controlled human infection model (CHIM), healthy volunteers are inoculated with HCV and then treated. Residual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk after viral clearance is an important consideration when evaluating the CHIM. We estimate HCC risk in spontaneously cleared HCV and in noncirrhosis after sustained virological response (SVR) to HCV treatment in a systematic review and using data from 3 cohorts: German anti-D, Taiwan, and US Veterans Affairs (VA). For noncirrhosis SVR, the overall HCC rate is 0.33 per 100 patient-years in meta-analysis. HCC rates for the German, Taiwan, and US Veterans Affairs cohorts are 0, 0.14, and 0.02 per 100 patient-years, respectively. Past hepatitis B virus exposure was not accounted for in the Taiwan cohort, while VA patients were likely tested based on liver disease/risk factors, which may confound HCC outcomes. The German cohort with no HCC after 44 years is most comparable to the CHIM participants. Although it is difficult to precisely estimate HCC risk from an HCV CHIM, the data suggest the risk to be very low or negligible.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available