Provider Attitudes Toward Risk-Based Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance rates are suboptimal in clinical practice. We aimed to elicit providers' opinions on the following aspects of HCC surveillance: preferred strategies, barriers and facilitators, and the impact of a patient's HCC risk on the choice of surveillance modality. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey among gastroenterology and hepatology providers (40% faculty physicians, 21% advanced practice providers, 39% fellow-trainees) from 26 US medical centers in 17 states. RESULTS: Of 654 eligible providers, 305 (47%) completed the survey. Nearly all (98.4%) of the providers endorsed semi-annual HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis, with 84.2% recommending ultrasound ± alpha fetoprotein (AFP) and 15.4% recommending computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Barriers to surveillance included limited HCC treatment options, screening test effectiveness to reduce mortality, access to transportation, and high out-of-pocket costs. Facilitators of surveillance included professional society guidelines. Most providers (72.1%) would perform surveillance even if HCC risk was low (≤0.5% per year), while 98.7% would perform surveillance if HCC risk was ≥1% per year. As a patient's HCC risk increased from 1% to 3% to 5% per year, providers reported they would be less likely to order ultrasound ± AFP (83.6% to 68.9% to 57.4%; P < .001) and more likely to order CT or MRI ± AFP (3.9% to 26.2% to 36.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providers recommend HCC surveillance even when HCC risk is much lower than the threshold suggested by professional societies. Many appear receptive to risk-based HCC surveillance strategies that depend on patients' estimated HCC risk, instead of our current "one-size-fits all" strategy.

Expanding indications for liver transplantation in the era of liver transplant oncology.

Despite numerous advances and emerging data, liver transplantation in the setting of gastrointestinal malignancies remains controversial outside of certain accepted indications. In an era of persistent organ shortage and increasing organ demand, allocation of liver grafts must be considered carefully. While hepatocellular carcinoma and hilar cholangiocarcinoma have become accepted indications for transplantation, tumor size and standardized multi-disciplinary treatment protocols are necessary to ensure optimal patient outcomes. As more studies seeking to expand the oncologic indications for liver transplantation are emerging, it is becoming increasingly clear that tumor biology and response to therapy are key factors for optimal oncologic outcomes. In addition, time from diagnosis to transplantation appears to correlate with survival, as stable disease over time portends better outcomes post-operatively. Identifying aggressive disease pre-transplant remains difficult with current imaging and tissue sampling techniques. While tumor size and stage are important prognostic predictors for most malignancies, patient and tumor selection protocols are necessary. As the fields of medical and surgical oncology continue to evolve, it is clear that a protocolized interdisciplinary treatment approach is necessary for combatting any cancer effectively. Disease stability over time and response to neoadjuvant therapy may be the best predictors for successful patient outcomes and can be easily incorporated in our treatment paradigms. Current data evaluating liver transplantation for expanded oncologic indications such as: expanded criteria hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, mixed tumors, and liver limited metastatic colorectal carcinomas, incorporate multi-modal therapies and evaluation of tumor treatment response. While further investigation is necessary, initial results suggest there is an expanded role for transplant surgery in malignancy in a new era of liver transplant oncology.

Eight-week ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in non-cirrhotic, treatment-naïve hepatitis C genotype-1 patients with hepatitis C virus-RNA < 6 million: Single center, real world effectiveness and safety.

AIM: To evaluate sustained viral response (SVR) of 8-wk ledipasvir/sofosbuvir therapy among non-cirrhotic, genotype-1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients with RNA < 6 million IU/mL. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study to examine SVR rates, predictors of treatment failure and safety analysis of 8-wk ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) therapy among non-cirrhotic, genotype 1 HCV patients with viral load < 6 million IU/mL. Primary outcome was an achievement of SVR at 12 wk after treatment. Secondary outcomes were identifying predictors of treatment failure and adverse events during treatment. RESULTS: Total 736 patients: 55% males, 51% Caucasians and 65% were genotype 1a. Non-cirrhotic state of 53% was determined by clinical judgment (imaging, AST, platelet count) and 47% had documented liver fibrosis testing (biopsy, vibration-controlled transient elastography, serum biomarkers). Overall SVR12 was 96%. No difference in SVR12 was seen between patients whose non-cirrhotic state was determined by clinical judgment and patients who had fibrosis testing. Age groups, gender, ethnicity and genotype 1 subtype did not predict SVR. Non-cirrhotic state determined by clinical judgment based on simple, non-invasive tests were not associated with lower SVR [OR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.48-2.17, P = 0.962]. The AUROC for hepatitis C RNA viral load was 0.734 (P < 0.001, 95%CI: 0.66-0.82). HCV RNA 2.2 million IU/mL was identified as the cutoff value with sensitivity 73% and specificity 64%. HCV RNA < 2.2 million IU/mL was associated with significantly higher SVR 98% with OR = 0.22 (95%CI: 0.1-0.49, P < 0.001) compared to SVR 92% in HCV RNA ≥ 2.2 million IU/mL. No death or morbidities were reported. CONCLUSION: Our outcomes validate safety and effectiveness of 8-wk LDV/SOF therapy in non-cirrhotic, untreated HCV genotype 1 patients with HCV RNA < 6 million IU/mL.

Eight weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is effective for selected patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection.

Eight weeks duration of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) can be considered in genotype 1 hepatitis C virus-infected patients who are treatment-naive, do not have cirrhosis, and have a pretreatment viral load <6,000,000 IU/mL. The effectiveness of this regimen, however, has not been fully confirmed by real-world experience. Using data from real-world cohorts, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of 8 weeks of LDV/SOF treatment, examine variables associated with relapse after treatment with this regimen, and compare the effectiveness of 8 weeks and 12 weeks of LDV/SOF treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of 8 weeks of therapy and characteristics associated with relapse, we used individual patient data from the IFI (Institut für Interdisziplinäre Medizin), Burman's Pharmacy, and Kaiser Permanente Southern California. All patients had fibrosis staging assessed with biopsy, transient elastography, or serum biomarkers. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of six additional real-world cohorts, to compare effectiveness of 8 weeks to 12 weeks duration. In our pooled data analysis, 634 patients were treated for 8 weeks with LDV/SOF, of whom all had outcomes of cure or relapse without loss to follow-up. Per protocol rates of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks were 98.1% (622/634) in the full cohort and 97.9% (571/583) among treatment-eligible patients. Exact logistic regression revealed no specific patient characteristics associated with relapse. Our meta-analysis of six additional real-world cohorts, comprised of 5,637 patients, demonstrated similar risk for relapse between 8 weeks and 12 weeks of LDV/SOF (relative risk = 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.00). CONCLUSION: An 8-week duration of treatment with LDV/SOF is highly effective in properly selected patients; greater use of this regimen is recommended. (Hepatology 2017;65:1094-1103).

Comparative genomic analysis of esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma.

Esophageal cancer ranks sixth in cancer death. To explore its genetic origins, we conducted exomic sequencing on 11 esophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) and 12 esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCC) from the United States. Interestingly, inactivating mutations of NOTCH1 were identified in 21% of ESCCs but not in EACs. There was a substantial disparity in the spectrum of mutations, with more indels in ESCCs, A:T>C:G transversions in EACs, and C:G>G:C transversions in ESCCs (P < 0.0001). Notably, NOTCH1 mutations were more frequent in North American ESCCs (11 of 53 cases) than in ESCCs from China (1 of 48 cases). A parallel analysis found that most mutations in EACs were already present in matched Barrett esophagus. These discoveries highlight key genetic differences between EACs and ESCCs and between American and Chinese ESCCs, and suggest that NOTCH1 is a tumor suppressor gene in the esophagus. Finally, we provide a genetic basis for the evolution of EACs from Barrett esophagus.