-
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Oct 2021Advances in imaging technology have the potential to transform the early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through quantitative image analysis.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Advances in imaging technology have the potential to transform the early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through quantitative image analysis. Computational "radiomic" techniques extract biomarker information from images which can be used to improve diagnosis and predict tumour biology.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review on radiomic features in HCC diagnosis and prognosis, with a focus on reporting metrics and methodologic standardisation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of all full-text articles published from inception through December 1, 2019. Standardised data extraction and quality assessment metrics were applied to all studies.
RESULTS
A total of 54 studies were included for analysis. Radiomic features demonstrated good discriminatory performance to differentiate HCC from other solid lesions (c-statistics 0.66-0.95), and to predict microvascular invasion (c-statistic 0.76-0.92), early recurrence after hepatectomy (c-statistics 0.71-0.86), and prognosis after locoregional or systemic therapies (c-statistics 0.74-0.81). Common stratifying features for diagnostic and prognostic radiomic tools included analyses of imaging skewness, analysis of the peritumoural region, and feature extraction from the arterial imaging phase. The overall quality of the included studies was low, with common deficiencies in both internal and external validation, standardised imaging segmentation, and lack of comparison to a gold standard.
CONCLUSIONS
Quantitative image analysis demonstrates promise as a non-invasive biomarker to improve HCC diagnosis and management. However, standardisation of protocols and outcome measurement, sharing of algorithms and analytic methods, and external validation are necessary prior to widespread application of radiomics to HCC diagnosis and prognosis in clinical practice.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Hepatectomy; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34390014
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16563 -
The Lancet. Oncology Apr 2022The clinical presentation and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related hepatocellular carcinoma are unclear when compared with hepatocellular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Clinical characteristics, surveillance, treatment allocation, and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The clinical presentation and outcomes of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-related hepatocellular carcinoma are unclear when compared with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. We aimed to establish the prevalence, clinical features, surveillance rates, treatment allocation, and outcomes of NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception until Jan 17, 2022, for articles in English that compared clinical features, and outcomes of NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma versus hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. We included cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies and excluded paediatric studies. Study-level data were extracted from the published reports. The primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of hepatocellular carcinoma secondary to NAFLD, (2) comparison of patient and tumour characteristics of NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma versus other causes, and (3) comparison of surveillance, treatment allocation, and overall and disease-free survival outcomes of NAFLD-related versus non-NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma. We analysed proportional data using a generalised linear mixed model. Pairwise meta-analysis was done to obtain odds ratio (OR) or mean difference, comparing NAFLD-related with non-NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma. We evaluated survival outcomes using pooled analysis of hazard ratios.
FINDINGS
Of 3631 records identified, 61 studies (done between January, 1980, and May, 2021; 94 636 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall, the proportion of hepatocellular carcinoma cases secondary to NAFLD was 15·1% (95% CI 11·9-18·9). Patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma were older (p<0·0001), had higher BMI (p<0·0001), and were more likely to present with metabolic comorbidities (diabetes [p<0·0001], hypertension [p<0·0001], and hyperlipidaemia [p<0·0001]) or cardiovascular disease at presentation (p=0·0055) than patients with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. They were also more likely to be non-cirrhotic (38·5%, 27·9-50·2 vs 14·6%, 8·7-23·4 for hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes; p<0·0001). Patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma had larger tumour diameters (p=0·0087), were more likely to have uninodular lesions (p=0·0003), and had similar odds of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages, TNM stages, alpha fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status to patients with non-NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma. A lower proportion of patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma underwent surveillance (32·8%, 12·0-63·7) than did patients with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes (55·7%, 24·0-83·3; p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in treatment allocation (curative therapy, palliative therapy, and best supportive care) between patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma and those with hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. Overall survival did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio 1·05, 95% CI 0·92-1·20, p=0·43), but disease-free survival was longer for patients with NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma (0·79, 0·63-0·99; p=0·044). There was substantial heterogeneity in most analyses (I>75%), and all articles had low-to-moderate risk of bias.
INTERPRETATION
NAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with a higher proportion of patients without cirrhosis and lower surveillance rates than hepatocellular carcinoma due to other causes. Surveillance strategies should be developed for patients with NAFLD without cirrhosis who are at high risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Liver Neoplasms; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
PubMed: 35255263
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00078-X -
Environmental Health Perspectives Sep 2014Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This determination was based on the evidence regarding the relationship of PM2.5 and PM10 to lung cancer risk; however, the IARC evaluation did not include a quantitative summary of the evidence.
OBJECTIVE
Our goal was to provide a systematic review and quantitative summary of the evidence regarding the relationship between PM and lung cancer.
METHODS
We conducted meta-analyses of studies examining the relationship of exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 with lung cancer incidence and mortality. In total, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria and provided the information necessary to estimate the change in lung cancer risk per 10-μg/m3 increase in exposure to PM. We used random-effects analyses to allow between-study variability to contribute to meta-estimates.
RESULTS
The meta-relative risk for lung cancer associated with PM2.5 was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.14). The meta-relative risk of lung cancer associated with PM10 was similar, but less precise: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.17). Estimates were robust to restriction to studies that considered potential confounders, as well as subanalyses by exposure assessment method. Analyses by smoking status showed that lung cancer risk associated with PM2.5 was greatest for former smokers [1.44 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.22)], followed by never-smokers [1.18 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.39)], and then current smokers [1.06 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.15)]. In addition, meta-estimates for adenocarcinoma associated with PM2.5 and PM10 were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.83) and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.63), respectively.
CONCLUSION
The results of these analyses, and the decision of the IARC Working Group to classify PM and outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (Group 1), further justify efforts to reduce exposures to air pollutants that can arise from many sources.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Air Pollutants; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Incidence; Lung Neoplasms; Particle Size; Particulate Matter; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 24911630
DOI: 10.1289/ehp/1408092 -
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Feb 2011Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung... (Review)
Review
International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma.
INTRODUCTION
Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung adenocarcinoma, an international multidisciplinary classification was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. This new adenocarcinoma classification is needed to provide uniform terminology and diagnostic criteria, especially for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), the overall approach to small nonresection cancer specimens, and for multidisciplinary strategic management of tissue for molecular and immunohistochemical studies.
METHODS
An international core panel of experts representing all three societies was formed with oncologists/pulmonologists, pathologists, radiologists, molecular biologists, and thoracic surgeons. A systematic review was performed under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society Documents Development and Implementation Committee. The search strategy identified 11,368 citations of which 312 articles met specified eligibility criteria and were retrieved for full text review. A series of meetings were held to discuss the development of the new classification, to develop the recommendations, and to write the current document. Recommendations for key questions were graded by strength and quality of the evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The classification addresses both resection specimens, and small biopsies and cytology. The terms BAC and mixed subtype adenocarcinoma are no longer used. For resection specimens, new concepts are introduced such as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) for small solitary adenocarcinomas with either pure lepidic growth (AIS) or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm invasion (MIA) to define patients who, if they undergo complete resection, will have 100% or near 100% disease-specific survival, respectively. AIS and MIA are usually nonmucinous but rarely may be mucinous. Invasive adenocarcinomas are classified by predominant pattern after using comprehensive histologic subtyping with lepidic (formerly most mixed subtype tumors with nonmucinous BAC), acinar, papillary, and solid patterns; micropapillary is added as a new histologic subtype. Variants include invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (formerly mucinous BAC), colloid, fetal, and enteric adenocarcinoma. This classification provides guidance for small biopsies and cytology specimens, as approximately 70% of lung cancers are diagnosed in such samples. Non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), in patients with advanced-stage disease, are to be classified into more specific types such as adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, whenever possible for several reasons: (1) adenocarcinoma or NSCLC not otherwise specified should be tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations as the presence of these mutations is predictive of responsiveness to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, (2) adenocarcinoma histology is a strong predictor for improved outcome with pemetrexed therapy compared with squamous cell carcinoma, and (3) potential life-threatening hemorrhage may occur in patients with squamous cell carcinoma who receive bevacizumab. If the tumor cannot be classified based on light microscopy alone, special studies such as immunohistochemistry and/or mucin stains should be applied to classify the tumor further. Use of the term NSCLC not otherwise specified should be minimized.
CONCLUSIONS
This new classification strategy is based on a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma that incorporates clinical, molecular, radiologic, and surgical issues, but it is primarily based on histology. This classification is intended to support clinical practice, and research investigation and clinical trials. As EGFR mutation is a validated predictive marker for response and progression-free survival with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced lung adenocarcinoma, we recommend that patients with advanced adenocarcinomas be tested for EGFR mutation. This has implications for strategic management of tissue, particularly for small biopsies and cytology samples, to maximize high-quality tissue available for molecular studies. Potential impact for tumor, node, and metastasis staging include adjustment of the size T factor according to only the invasive component (1) pathologically in invasive tumors with lepidic areas or (2) radiologically by measuring the solid component of part-solid nodules.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 21252716
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2022A considerable number of clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with resectable esophageal cancer are emerging. However, systematic evaluations of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluation of Clinical and Safety Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Combined With Chemotherapy for Patients With Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
A considerable number of clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with resectable esophageal cancer are emerging. However, systematic evaluations of these studies are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To provide state-of-the-art evidence and normative theoretical support for neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant original articles and conference proceedings that were published in English through April 1, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Published phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included patients with resectable stage I to IV esophageal cancer who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) before surgery as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for meta-analysis were followed to extract data. A random-effects model was adopted if the heterogeneity was significant (I2 statistic >50%); otherwise, the common-effects model was used. Data analyses were conducted from April 2 to 8, 2022.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Pathological complete response (pCR) rate and major pathological response (MPR) rate were considered to be the primary outcomes calculated for the clinical outcomes of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Incidence of treatment-related severe adverse events was set as the major measure for the safety outcome. The rate of R0 surgical resection was summarized. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to histologic subtype and ICI types.
RESULTS
A total of 27 clinical trials with 815 patients were included. Pooled rates were 31.4% (95% CI, 27.6%-35.3%) for pCR and 48.9% (95% CI, 42.0-55.9%) for MCR in patients with esophageal cancer. In terms of safety, the pooled incidence of treatment-related severe adverse events was 26.9% (95% CI, 16.7%-38.3%). Most patients achieved R0 surgical resection (98.6%; 95% CI, 97.1%-99.6%). Regarding histologic subtypes, the pooled pCR rates were 32.4% (95% CI, 28.2%-36.8%) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and 25.2% (95% CI, 16.3%-35.1%) in esophageal adenocarcinoma. The pooled MPR rate was 49.4% (95% CI, 42.1%-56.7%) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study found that neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy had promising clinical and safety outcomes for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to validate the findings and benefits of ICIs.
Topics: Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Immunotherapy; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 36322089
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.39778 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2017Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) is a rare malignant disease, although its incidence has increased over the last few decades. It derives from follicular thyroid... (Review)
Review
Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) is a rare malignant disease, although its incidence has increased over the last few decades. It derives from follicular thyroid cells. Generally speaking, the prognosis is excellent. If treatment according to the current guidelines is given, cases of recurrence or persistence are rare. DTC requires special expertise by the treating physician. In recent years, new therapeutic options for these patients have become available. For this article we performed a systematic literature review with special focus on the guidelines of the American Thyroid Association, the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, and the German Society of Nuclear Medicine. For DTC, surgery and radioiodine therapy followed by levothyroxine substitution remain the established therapeutic procedures. Even metastasized tumors can be cured this way. However, in rare cases of radioiodine-refractory tumors, additional options are to be discussed. These include strict suppression of thyroid-stimulating hormone (also known as thyrotropin, TSH) and external local radiotherapy. Systemic cytostatic chemotherapy does not play a significant role. Recently, multikinase or tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of radioiodine-refractory DTC. Although a benefit for overall survival has not been shown yet, these new drugs can slow down tumor progression. However, they are frequently associated with severe side effects and should be reserved for patients with threatening symptoms only.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adenocarcinoma, Follicular; Carcinoma, Papillary; Drug Therapy; Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Iodine Radioisotopes; Neoplasm Metastasis; Noonan Syndrome; Prognosis; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Thyroid Cancer, Papillary; Thyroid Hormones; Thyroid Neoplasms; Thyroid Nodule; Thyrotropin; Thyroxine
PubMed: 28629126
DOI: 10.3390/ijms18061292 -
Clinical Lung Cancer Sep 2023MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping is a rare oncogenic driver in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for which targeted therapy with MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping is a rare oncogenic driver in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for which targeted therapy with MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was recently approved. Given the heterogeneity in published data of METex14 skipping NSCLC, we conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate its frequency, patient characteristics, and outcomes.
METHODS
On June 13, 2022 we conducted a systematic literature review of publications and conference abstracts reporting frequency, patient characteristics, or outcomes of patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC.
RESULTS
We included 139 studies reporting frequency or patient characteristics (350,997 patients), and 39 studies reporting clinical outcomes (3989 patients). Median METex14 skipping frequency was 2.0% in unselected patients with NSCLC, with minimal geographic variation. Median frequency was 2.4% in adenocarcinoma or nonsquamous subgroups, 12.0% in sarcomatoid, and 1.3% in squamous histology. Patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC were more likely to be elderly, have adenocarcinoma histology; there was no marked sex or smoking status distribution. In first line of treatment, median objective response rate ranged from 50.7% to 68.8% with targeted therapies (both values correspond to MET TKIs), was 33.3% with immunotherapy, and ranged from 23.1% to 27.0% with chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with METex14 skipping are more likely to have certain characteristics, but no patient subgroup can be ruled out; thus, it is crucial to test all patients with NSCLC to identify suitable candidates for MET inhibitor therapy. MET TKIs appeared to result in higher efficacy outcomes, although no direct comparison with chemotherapy or immunotherapy regimens was found.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Exons; Lung Neoplasms; Mutation; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-met
PubMed: 37451931
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2023.06.008 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Feb 2022Identification of postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) among Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients presents an opportunity to improve survival of esophageal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Identification of postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) among Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients presents an opportunity to improve survival of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to estimate the proportion of PEEC within the first year after BE diagnosis.
METHODS
Multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) were searched until September 2020 for original studies with at least 1-year follow-up evaluation that reported EAC and/or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in the first year after index endoscopy in nondysplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, or indefinite dysplasia. The proportions of PEEC defined using EAC alone and EAC+HGD were calculated by dividing EAC or EAC+HGD in the first year over the total number of EAC or EAC+HGD, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 52 studies with 145,726 patients and a median follow-up period of 4.8 years. The proportion of PEEC (EAC) was 21% (95% CI, 13-31) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 26% (95% CI, 19-34). Among studies with nondysplastic BE only, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 17% (95% CI, 11-23) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 14% (95% CI, 8-19). Among studies with 5 or more years of follow-up evaluation, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 10% and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 19%. Meta-regression analysis showed a strong inverse relationship between PEEC and incident EAC (P < .001). The PEEC (EAC) proportion increased from 5% in studies published before 2000 to 30% after 2015. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for most analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
PEEC accounts for a high proportion of HGD/EACs and is proportional to reduction in incident EAC. Using best endoscopic techniques now and performing future research on improving neoplasia detection through implementation of quality measures and educational tools is needed to reduce PEEC.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Barrett Esophagus; Disease Progression; Endoscopy; Esophageal Neoplasms; Humans; Hyperplasia; Precancerous Conditions
PubMed: 33901662
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.032 -
Journal of Hepatology Jul 2022There is controversy regarding the overall value of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis given the lack of data from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
There is controversy regarding the overall value of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis given the lack of data from randomized-controlled trials. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies evaluating the benefits and harms of HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis.
METHODS
We performed a search of the Medline and EMBASE databases and national meeting abstracts from January 2014 through July 2020 for studies reporting early-stage HCC detection, curative treatment receipt, or overall survival, stratified by HCC surveillance status, among patients with cirrhosis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and hazard ratios, according to HCC surveillance status, were calculated for each outcome using the DerSimonian and Laird method for random effects models.
RESULTS
We identified 59 studies including 145,396 patients with HCC, which was detected by surveillance in 41,052 (28.2%) cases. HCC surveillance was associated with improved early-stage detection (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.73-1.98; I = 82%), curative treatment receipt (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.69-1.97; I = 75%), and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.61-0.72; I = 78%) after adjusting for lead-time bias; however, there was notable heterogeneity in all pooled estimates. Four studies examined surveillance-related physical harms due to false positive or indeterminate surveillance results, but no studies examined potential financial or psychological harms. The proportion of patients experiencing surveillance-related physical harms ranged from 8.8% to 27.5% across studies, although most harms were mild in severity.
CONCLUSION
HCC surveillance is associated with improved early detection, curative treatment receipt, and survival in patients with cirrhosis, although there was heterogeneity in pooled estimates. Available data suggest HCC surveillance is of high value in patients with cirrhosis, although continued rigorous studies evaluating benefits and harms are still needed.
LAY SUMMARY
There has been ongoing debate about the overall value of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in patients with cirrhosis given the lack of data from randomized-controlled trials. In a systematic review of contemporary cohort studies, we found that HCC screening is associated with improved early detection, curative treatment receipt, and survival in patients with cirrhosis, although there were fewer data quantifying potential screening-related harms. Available data suggest HCC screening is of high value in patients with cirrhosis, although continued studies evaluating benefits and harms are still needed.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Early Diagnosis; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Liver Neoplasms; Mass Screening
PubMed: 35139400
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.01.023