Dynamic Changes in Ultrasound Quality for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening in Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Identifying patients in whom ultrasound may be inadequate to exclude the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can inform interventions to improve screening effectiveness. We aimed to characterize correlates of suboptimal ultrasound quality and changes in ultrasound quality over time in patients with cirrhosis undergoing HCC screening. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis who underwent ultrasound examination at 2 large health systems between July 2016 and July 2019. Exam adequacy was graded by radiologists using the LI-RADS Visualization Score (A, B, C); we evaluated changes in visualization over time among patients with >1 ultrasound exams. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with limited ultrasound visualization (scores B or C). RESULTS: Of 2053 cirrhosis patients, 1685 (82.1%) had ultrasounds with score A, 262 (12.8%) had score B, and 106 (5.2%) had score C. Limited visualization was associated with alcohol-related or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease cirrhosis and presence of class II-III obesity. Among 1546 patients with >1 ultrasounds, 1129 (73.0%) had the same visualization score on follow-up (1046 score A, 60 score B, 23 score C). However, 255 (19.6%) of 1301 with score A at baseline had limited visualization when repeated (230 score B, 25 score C), and 130 (53.1%) of 245 patients with baseline limited visualization had good visualization when repeated. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 5 patients with cirrhosis had moderately-severely limited ultrasound visualization for HCC nodules, particularly those with obesity or alcohol-related or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease cirrhosis. Ultrasound quality can change between exams, including improvement in many patients with limited visualization.

A Panel of Glycopeptides as Candidate Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis of NASH Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using a Stepped HCD Method and PRM Evaluation.

Changes in N-glycosylation on specific peptide sites of serum proteins have been investigated as potential markers for diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)-related HCC. To accomplish this work, a novel workflow involving broad-scale marker discovery in serum followed by targeted marker evaluation of these glycopeptides were combined. The workflow involved an LC-Stepped HCD-DDA-MS/MS method coupled with offline peptide fractionation for large-scale identification of N-glycopeptides directly from pooled serum samples (each n = 10) as well as differential determination of N-glycosylation changes between disease states. We then evaluated several potentially diagnostic N-glycopeptides among 78 individual patient samples (40 cirrhosis, 28 early stage NASH HCC, and 10 late-stage NASH HCC) by LC-Stepped HCD-PRM-MS/MS to quantitatively analyze 65 targeted glycopeptides from 7 glycoproteins. Of these targets, we found site-specific N-glycopeptides n169GSLFAFR_HexNAc(4)Hex(5)NeuAc(2) and n242ISDGFDGIPDNVDAALALPAHSYSGR_HexNAc(5)Hex(6)Fuc(1)NeuAc(3) from VTNC were significantly increased comparing samples from patients with NASH cirrhosis and NASH HCC (p < 0.05). When combining results of these 2 glycopeptides with AFP, the ROC curve analysis demonstrated the AUC value increased to 0.834 (95% CI, 0.748-0.921) and 0.847 (95% CI, 0.766-0.932), respectively, as compared to that of AFP alone (AUC = 0.791, 95% CI, 0.690-0.892). These 2 glycopeptides may serve as potential biomarkers for early HCC diagnosis in patients with NASH related cirrhosis.

Outcome of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Detected During Surveillance: Comparing USA and Japan.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Differences in outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between countries have been largely attributed to variation in the conduct of surveillance and subsequent HCC treatment eligibility. However, differences in outcomes among those detected under surveillance have not been well described. We compared characteristics and prognosis between patients with surveillance-detected HCC from the United States (US) and Japan. METHODS: Patients in whom initial HCC was detected under surveillance between January 2006 and December 2015 from two centers in the US and two from Japan were included. Survival was compared between patients from the US and Japan using multivariable Cox regression analysis and propensity-score matched analysis. We performed subgroup analyses by liver disease etiology, tumor stage, and type of HCC treatment. RESULTS: Of 3788 HCC patients, 1797 (47.4%) were diagnosed under surveillance, 715 from the US and 1082 from Japan. Patients from the US diagnosed under surveillance had worse liver dysfunction and larger tumor burden than those from Japan. In multivariate analysis, US patients with surveillance-detected HCC had significantly worse survival than those from Japan (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00-1.35), which was also observed in propensity-score matched analysis. However, this difference was no longer significant after adjusting for treatment type (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92-1.25). When stratified by treatment type, survival was comparable between the two countries except lower survival among patients who underwent resection in the US versus Japan. CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis of patients with surveillance-detected HCC is poorer in the US than Japan, primarily driven by differences in treatment delivery. Studies are necessary to elucidate reasons for these differences.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Process Failures in Patients with Cirrhosis.

Professional society guidelines recommend semiannual screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis; however, studies suggest underuse of screening in clinical practice. Our study's aim was to characterize reasons for HCC screening underuse among patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis diagnosed with HCC in two large health systems from 2011 to 2019. We classified screening receipt as consistent, inconsistent, or no screening in the year before HCC diagnosis. We categorized reasons for screening underuse as a potential failure at each of the following steps required for HCC screening: receipt of regular outpatient care, recognition of liver disease, recognition of cirrhosis, screening orders in patients with cirrhosis, and adherence to screening ultrasound appointments. Among 1,014 patients with cirrhosis with HCC, only 377 (37.2%) had regular outpatient care in the year before HCC presentation. Consistent screening was observed in 93 (24.7%) patients under regular outpatient care, whereas 161 (42.7%) had inconsistent screening and 123 (32.6%) no screening. We found screening underuse related to failures at each step in the screening process, although nearly half (49.6%) were due to lack of screening orders in patients with known cirrhosis. Conclusion: The most common reasons for HCC screening underuse in patients with cirrhosis are lack of regular outpatient care and lack of screening orders in those with known cirrhosis, highlighting the need for interventions targeted at these steps to increase HCC screening use.