Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the leading causes of cancer related death in the world. Biannual surveillance for the disease in patients with cirrhosis and in high risk carriers of hepatitis B ...virus allows early stage cancer detection and treatment with good long term outcomes. Liver ultrasonography and serum α fetoprotein are the most commonly used surveillance tests. If suspicious results are found on the surveillance test, multiphasic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging should be undertaken to confirm the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. If radiologic tests show inconclusive results, liver biopsy or repeat imaging could be considered for confirmation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Management of the disease is complex. Patients should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team, and the selection of treatment should consider factors such as tumor burden, severity of liver dysfunction, medical comorbidities, local expertise, and preference of patients. Early stage hepatocellular carcinoma is best managed by curative treatment, which includes resection, ablation, or transplantation. Patients with intermediate stage disease often receive locoregional treatment. Systemic treatment is reserved for patients with advanced disease. Several positive, phase III, randomized controlled trials have expanded the systemic treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with promising long term outcomes, especially trials using combination treatments, which could also have eventual implications for the treatment of earlier stage disease.
Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there ...is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow‐up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT‐indeterminate or MRI‐indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI or gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate‐enhanced or extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI over CT. Conclusion: CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross‐sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology 2018;67:401‐421).
Background & Aims The relative frequency of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) as an indication for liver transplantation and comparative outcomes following transplantation are poorly understood. ...Methods We analyzed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for primary adult liver transplant recipients from 2001 to 2009. Results From 2001 to 2009, 35,781 patients underwent a primary liver transplant, including 1959 for who NASH was the primary or secondary indication. The percentage of patients undergoing a liver transplant for NASH increased from 1.2% in 2001 to 9.7% in 2009. NASH is now the third most common indication for liver transplantation in the United States. No other indication for liver transplantation increased in frequency during the study period. Compared with other indications for liver transplantation, recipients with NASH are older (58.5 ± 8.0 vs 53.0 ± 8.9 years; P < .001), have a larger body mass index (>30 kg/m2 ) (63% vs 32%; P < .001), are more likely to be female (47% vs 29%; P < .001), and have a lower frequency of hepatocellular carcinoma (12% vs 19%; P < .001). Survival at 1 and 3 years after liver transplantation for NASH was 84% and 78%, respectively, compared with 87% and 78% for other indications ( P = .67). Patient and graft survival for liver recipients with NASH were similar to values for other indications after adjusting for level of creatinine, sex, age, and body mass index. Conclusions NASH is the third most common indication for liver transplantation in the United States and is on a trajectory to become the most common. Outcomes for patients undergoing a liver transplant for NASH are similar to those for other indications.
The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been established as a reliable indicator of short-term survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. The current version (MELDNa), consisting of ...the international normalized ratio and serum bilirubin, creatinine, and sodium, has been used to determine organ allocation priorities for liver transplantation in the United States. The objective was to optimize MELD further by taking into account additional variables and updating coefficients with contemporary data.
All candidates registered on the liver transplant wait list in the US national registry from January 2016 through December 2018 were included. Uni- and multivariable Cox models were developed to predict survival up to 90 days after wait list registration. Model fit was tested using the concordance statistic (C-statistic) and reclassification, and the Liver Simulated Allocation Model was used to estimate the impact of replacing MELDNa with the new model.
The final multivariable model was characterized by (1) additional variables of female sex and serum albumin, (2) interactions between bilirubin and sodium and between albumin and creatinine, and (3) an upper bound for creatinine at 3.0 mg/dL. The final model (MELD 3.0) had better discrimination than MELDNa (C-statistic, 0.869 vs 0.862; P < .01). Importantly, MELD 3.0 correctly reclassified a net of 8.8% of decedents to a higher MELD tier, affording them a meaningfully higher chance of transplantation, particularly in women. In the Liver Simulated Allocation Model analysis, MELD 3.0 resulted in fewer wait list deaths compared to MELDNa (7788 vs 7850; P = .02).
MELD 3.0 affords more accurate mortality prediction in general than MELDNa and addresses determinants of wait list outcomes, including the sex disparity.
An updated version of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) affords improved prediction of mortality risk for patients with cirrhosis and corrects the sex disparity.
PDF
