Purpose Following the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib has become the standard of care for patients with advanced unresectable hepatocellular ...carcinoma, but the relation between survival advantage and disease etiology remains unclear. To address this, we undertook an individual patient data meta-analysis of three large prospective randomized trials in which sorafenib was the control arm. Methods Of a total of 3,256 patients, 1,643 (50%) who received sorafenib were available. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). A Bayesian hierarchical approach for individual patient data meta-analyses was applied using a piecewise exponential model. Results are presented in terms of hazard ratios comparing sorafenib with alternative therapies according to hepatitis C virus (HCV) or hepatitis B virus (HBV) status. Results Hazard ratios show improved OS for sorafenib in patients who are both HBV negative and HCV positive (log hazard ratio, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.06). Median unadjusted survival is 12.6 (11.15 to 13.8) months for sorafenib and 10.2 (8.88 to 12.2) months for "other" treatments in this subgroup. There was no evidence of improvement in OS for any other patient subgroups defined by HBV and HCV. Results were consistent across all trials with heterogeneity assessed using Cochran's Q statistic. Conclusion There is consistent evidence that the effect of sorafenib on OS is dependent on patients' hepatitis status. There is an improved OS for patients negative for HBV and positive for HCV when treated with sorafenib. There was no evidence of any improvement in OS attributable to sorafenib for patients positive for HBV and negative for HCV.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or ...rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection.
On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.
We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria).
Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer.
We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.
Display omitted
•Recurrence is frequent within 2 years of surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma.•In this large collaboration, we identify readily available, clinical parameters which ...influence early recurrence.•A simple and extensively validated statistical model for estimating early recurrence risk using an online calculator.•This facility will enhance patient counselling and will help in design of adjuvant clinical trials.
Resection is the most widely used potentially curative treatment for patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, recurrence within 2 years occurs in 30–50% of patients, being the major cause of mortality. Herein, we describe 2 models, both based on widely available clinical data, which permit risk of early recurrence to be assessed before and after resection.
A total of 3,903 patients undergoing surgical resection with curative intent were recruited from 6 different centres. We built 2 models for early recurrence, 1 using preoperative and 1 using pre and post-operative data, which were internally validated in the Hong Kong cohort. The models were then externally validated in European, Chinese and US cohorts. We developed 2 online calculators to permit easy clinical application.
Multivariable analysis identified male gender, large tumour size, multinodular tumour, high albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade and high serum alpha-fetoprotein as the key parameters related to early recurrence. Using these variables, a preoperative model (ERASL-pre) gave 3 risk strata for recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the entire cohort – low risk: 2-year RFS 64.8%, intermediate risk: 2-year RFS 42.5% and high risk: 2-year RFS 20.7%. Median survival in each stratum was similar between centres and the discrimination between the 3 strata was enhanced in the post-operative model (ERASL-post) which included ‘microvascular invasion’.
Statistical models that can predict the risk of early HCC recurrence after resection have been developed, extensively validated and shown to be applicable in the international setting. Such models will be valuable in guiding surveillance follow-up and in the design of post-resection adjuvant therapy trials.
The most effective treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma is surgical removal of the tumour but there is often recurrence. In this large international study, we develop a statistical method that allows clinicians to estimate the risk of recurrence in an individual patient. This facility enhances communication with the patient about the likely success of the treatment and will help in designing clinical trials that aim to find drugs that decrease the risk of recurrence.
Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have ...the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.
We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.
We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.
We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.
We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.
Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.
Hepatocellular carcinoma is a common complication of chronic liver disease (CLD), and is conventionally diagnosed by radiological means. We aimed to build a statistical model that could determine the ...risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in individual patients with CLD using objective measures, particularly serological tumor markers.
A total of 670 patients with either CLD alone or hepatocellular carcinoma were recruited from a single UK center into a case-control study. Sera were collected prospectively and specifically for this study. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine independent factors associated with hepatocellular carcinoma and a model built and assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and proportion of correct diagnoses.
The final model involving gender, age, AFP-L3, α fetoprotein (AFP), and des-carboxy-prothrombin ("GALAD") was developed in a "discovery" data set and validated in independent data sets both from the same institution and from an external institution. When optimized for sensitivity and specificity, the model gave values of more than 0.88 irrespective of the disease stage.
The presence of hepatocellular carcinoma can be detected in patients with CLD on the basis of a model involving objective clinical and serological factors. It is now necessary to test the model's performance in a prospective manner and in a routine clinical practice setting, to determine if it may replace or, more likely, enhance current radiological approaches.
Our data provide evidence that an entirely objective serum biomarker-based model may facilitate the detection and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and form the basis for a prospective study comparing this approach with the standard radiological approaches.
GALAD and BALAD-2 are statistical models for estimating the likelihood of the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in individual patients with chronic liver disease and the survival of patients ...with HCC, respectively. Both models use objective measures, particularly the serum markers α-fetoprotein (AFP), AFP-L3, and des-γ-carboxyprothrombin. We aimed to validate these models in an international cohort of patients with HCC and assess their clinical performance.
We collected data on cancer diagnosis and outcomes of 6834 patients (2430 with HCC and 4404 with chronic liver disease) recruited from Germany, Japan, and Hong Kong. We also collected data from 229 patients with other hepatobiliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma or pancreatic adenocarcinoma) and 92 healthy individuals (controls). For reference, the original UK cohort (on which the GALAD model initially was built and BALAD-2 was validated) was included in the analysis. We assessed the effects of tumor size and etiology on GALAD model performance, and its ability to correctly discriminate HCC from other hepatobiliary cancers. We assessed the performance of BALAD-2 in patients with different stages of HCC.
In all cohorts, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), quantifying the ability of GALAD to discriminate patients with HCC from patients with chronic liver disease, was greater than 0.90-similar to the series on which the model originally was built (AUROC, 0.97). GALAD discriminated patients with HCC from those with other hepatobiliary cancers with an AUROC value of 0.95; values were slightly lower for patients with small unifocal HCCs, ranging from 0.85 to 0.95. Etiology and treatment of chronic viral hepatitis had no effect on the performance of this model. BALAD-2 analysis assigned patients with HCC to 4 distinct prognostic groups-overall and when patients were stratified according to disease stage.
We validated the performance of the GALAD and BALAD-2 models for the diagnosis of HCC and predicting patient survival, respectively (based on levels of the serum markers AFP, AFP-L3, and des-γ-carboxyprothrombin), in an international cohort of almost 7000 patients. These systems might be used in HCC surveillance and determination of patient prognosis.
Application of curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma is crucially dependent on underlying liver function. Using the recently described ALBI grade we examined the long-term impact of liver ...dysfunction on survival of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.
This cohort study comprised 2559 HCC patients from different geographic regions, all treated with curative intent. We also examined the relation between indocyanine green (ICG) clearance and ALBI score. Survival was measured from the date of treatment to the date of death or last follow-up.
The ALBI score correlated well with ICG clearance. Among those undergoing surgical resection, patients with ALBI grade-1 (good liver function) survived approximately twice as long as those with ALBI grade-2 (less good liver function), although more than 90% of these patients were classified as Child-Pugh (C-P) grade A. In the cohort receiving ablative therapies, there was a similar difference in survival between ALBI grade-1 and grade-2. Cox regression analysis confirmed that the ALBI score along with age, gender, aetiology and tumour factors (AFP, tumour size/number and vascular invasion) independently influenced survival in HCC patients receiving curative treatments.
The ALBI score represents a simple approach to the assessment of liver function in patients with HCC. After potentially curative therapy, those with ALBI grade-1 survived approximately twice as long as those with ALBI grade-2. These data suggest that ALBI grade-1 patients are appropriately treated with surgical resection whereas ALBI grade-2 patients may, where the option exists, be more suitable for liver transplantation or the less invasive curative ablative therapies.
Transarterial chemo-embolisation (TACE) is recommended for patients with BCLC intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (stage B), particularly in patients with good underlying liver function and ...minimal symptoms. The hepatoma arterial embolisation prognostic (HAP) score combines measures of liver function and tumour-related factors to offer a simple prognostic scoring system. The Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade permits assessment of the impact of liver function on survival. We aimed to investigate these two models and vascular invasion (VI).
In an international cohort of 3030 patients undergoing TACE, we examined the impact of liver function as assessed by the ALBI score, the HAP score and VI on survival.
Classification according to ALBI grade resulted in non-overlapping survival curves in the overall data set and all regional cohorts. The HAP score was also validated. Tumour number, aetiology and VI were identified as additional independent prognostic risk factors not currently included in the HAP score. Survival was particularly poor for patients with VI.
The ALBI grade categorised patients receiving TACE into three clear prognostic groups, thereby emphasising the importance of underlying liver function in the outcome of TACE. The HAP score has been validated internationally and the serious adverse impact of VI is clearly shown.
Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a diagnostic challenge, with the majority diagnosed at late stages. Existing systematic reviews of diagnostic models either use inappropriate meta-analytic methods ...or do not conduct statistical comparisons of models or stratify test performance by menopausal status. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and SCI Science Citation Index, trials registers, conference proceedings from 1991 to June 2019. Cochrane collaboration review methods included QUADAS-2 quality assessment and meta-analysis using hierarchical modelling. RMI, ROMA or ADNEX at any test positivity threshold were investigated. Histology or clinical follow-up was the reference standard. We excluded screening studies, studies restricted to pregnancy, recurrent or metastatic OC. 2 × 2 diagnostic tables were extracted separately for pre- and post-menopausal women. Results: We included 58 studies (30,121 patients, 9061 cases of ovarian cancer). Prevalence of OC ranged from 16 to 55% in studies. For premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (+/−2) and ADNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at 200 (p < 0.0001) 77.8 (72.5, 82.4), 94.9 (92.5, 96.6), and 57.1% (50.6 to 63.4) but lower specificity (p < 0.002), 92.5 (90.0, 94.4), 84.3 (81.3, 86.8), and 78.2 (75.8, 80.4). For postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (+/−2) and AdNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at a threshold of 200 (p < 0.001) 90.4 (87.4, 92.7), 97.6 (96.2, 98.5), and 78.7 (74.3, 82.5), specificity of ROMA was comparable, whilst ADneX was lower, 85.5 (81.3, 88.9), 81.3 (76.9, 85.0) (p = 0.155), compared to RMI 55.2 (51.2, 59.1) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In pre-menopausal women, ROMA and ADNEX offer significantly higher sensitivity but significantly decreased specificity. In post-menopausal women, ROMA demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI I, ADNEX has the highest sensitivity of all models, but with significantly reduced specificity. RMI I has poor sensitivity compared to ROMA or ADNEX. Choice between ROMA and ADNEX as a replacement test will depend on cost effectiveness and resource implications.
ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy and completeness of information provided by websites selling home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19.DesignCross-sectional observational study.SettingAll ...websites (n=27) selling direct to user home self-sampling and testing kits for COVID-19 (41 tests) in the UK (39 tests) and USA (two tests) identified by a website search on 23 May 2020.Main outcome measuresThirteen predefined basic information items to communicate to a user, including who should be tested, when and how testing should be done, test accuracy, and interpretation of results.ResultsMany websites did not provide the name or manufacturer of the test (32/41; 78%), when to use the test (10/41; 24%), test accuracy (12/41; 29%), and how to interpret results (21/41; 51%). Sensitivity and specificity were the most commonly reported test accuracy measures (either reported for 27/41 66% tests): we could only link these figures to manufacturers’ documents or publications for four (10%) tests. Predictive values, most relevant to users, were rarely reported (five 12% tests reported positive predictive values). For molecular virus tests, 9/23 (39%) websites explained that test positives should self-isolate, and 8/23 (35%) explained that test negatives may still have the disease. For antibody tests, 12/18 (67%) websites explained that testing positive does not necessarily infer immunity from future infection. Seven (39%) websites selling antibody tests claimed the test had a CE mark, when they were for a different intended use (venous blood rather than finger-prick samples).ConclusionsAt the point of online purchase of home self-sampling COVID-19 tests, users in the UK are provided with incomplete, and, in some cases, misleading information on test accuracy, intended use, and test interpretation. Best practice guidance for communication about tests to the public should be developed and enforced for online sales of COVID-19 tests.
PDF
