4.5 Article

Effectiveness of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Patients with Cirrhosis

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 793-799

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1005

关键词

-

资金

  1. [DK 064909]
  2. [DK077707]
  3. [KL2 RR024983-05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is recommended in patients with cirrhosis, but the effectiveness of a surveillance program in clinical practice has yet to be established. Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of a surveillance program with ultrasound and alpha-fetoprotein (A FP) to detect early HCCs. Methods: Four hundred and forty-six patients with Child A/B cirrhosis were prospectively enrolled between January 2004 and September 2006 and followed until July 2010. HCC surveillance using ultrasound and AFP was conducted per the treating hepatologist, although the standard was every 6 to 12 months. HCC was diagnosed using American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines and early HCC defined by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging. Performance characteristics were determined for surveillance using AFP, ultrasound, or the combination. Results: After a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 41 patients developed HCCs, of whom 30 (73.2%) had early HCCs. The annual incidence of HCC was 2.8%, with cumulative 3- and 5-year incidence rates of 5.7% and 9.1%, respectively. Surveillance ultrasound and AFP had sensitivities of 44% and 66% and specificities of 92% and 91%, respectively, for the detection of HCCs. Sensitivity significantly improved to 90%, with minimal loss in specificity (83%) when these tests were used in combination. Conclusions: When used as a surveillance program in a real-world clinical setting, combination of ultrasound and AFP is the most effective strategy to detect HCC at an early stage. Impact: Our results differ from the guidelines of the AASLD. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prey; 21(5); 793-9. (C)2012 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据