A Comparison of Presentation, Treatment, and Survival After Hepatocellular Carcinoma of Viral and Non-Viral Etiology in Damietta, Egypt, 2007-2019.

Context: The difference in prognosis between patients diagnosed with viral versus non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Egypt remains unclear. Methods: We used data from patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2019 from a large monocentric retrospective cohort at the Damietta Oncology referral center (northern Egypt). Presentation and treatment were compared between viral versus non-viral etiology HCC patients. Survival was compared relying on univariate and multivariate Cox regressions. Results: Data from 4714 HCC patients were analyzed. Among them, 204 (4.3%) presented with a non-viral etiology. Patients with non-viral versus viral etiology had a similar presentation overall, especially regarding the BCLC stage at HCC diagnosis. After controlling for various individual characteristics, patients with non-viral versus viral etiology had poorer survival (adjusted Hazard Ratio: 1.244; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.069-1.447). Conclusion: Despite similar features, patients with non-viral- related HCC had poorer survival compared to patients with viral-related HCC.

Changes in Presentation, Treatment, and Survival of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Damietta, Egypt, 2007-2019: A Retrospective Monocentric Cohort Study.

Introduction: We aimed to assess temporal changes in the presentation and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the northern Egypt region, one of the regions reporting the highest incidence of the disease globally. Methods: We conducted a monocentric retrospective study. Patients presenting at the Damietta Oncology referral center between 2007 and 2019 with a diagnosed HCC were eligible. Individual, clinical and tumor characteristics at HCC diagnosis, including the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging, were retrieved from medical files and patients' final vital status was ascertained by combining various data sources. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on diagnosis period: pre- and post-2014. Survival was analysed based on Kaplan-Meier curves and differences in restricted mean survival time (RMST). Results: Data from 5097 patients (among 5210 eligible, 97.8%) were analyzed. We observed a significant trend toward HCC diagnosed at earlier stage in the post- vs pre-2014 period (BCLC stage 0/A or B: 37.2% vs 27.1%, p<10-3). Overall patient's survival after the HCC diagnosis was poor, with a median of 8.1 months. The BCLC staging system performed well in predicting survival. Despite a trend toward HCC diagnosed at earlier stages, we did not observe a significant improvement in survival over time. Overall, treatments offered in this medical center were in line with international guidelines, and 16.1% of the patients who received a curative treatment had an improved survival (30.7 months in median). However, HCC recurrence was frequent among patients cured for HCC, with a median time to recurrence of 22 months. Discussion: Overall survival after HCC diagnosis in Egypt remains poor but is significantly improved by curative therapy. Despite a trend toward earlier diagnosis of HCC, we did not observe a general improvement in survival over time, which remains to be clearly understood.

Meta-analysis: risk of hepatitis C virus infection associated with hospital-based invasive procedures.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare settings, where invasive procedures are frequently performed, may play an important role in the transmission dynamics of blood-borne pathogens when compliance with infection control precautions is suboptimal. AIMS: To understand and quantify the role of hospital-based invasive procedures on hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify recent studies reporting association measures of HCV infection risk that are linked to iatrogenic procedures. Based on expert opinion, invasive procedures were categorised into 10 groups for which pooled measures were calculated. Finally, the relationship between pooled measures and the country-level HCV prevalence or the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index was assessed by meta-regression. RESULTS: We included 71 studies in the analysis. The most frequently evaluated procedures were blood transfusion (66 measures) and surgery (43 measures). The pooled odds ratio (OR) of HCV infection varied widely, ranging from 1.46 (95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.88) for dental procedures to 3.22 (1.7-6.11) for transplantation. The OR for blood transfusion was higher for transfusions performed before 1998 (3.77, 2.42-5.88) than for those without a specified/recent date (2.20, 1.77-2.75). In procedure-specific analyses, the HCV infection risk was significantly negatively associated with the HAQ for endoscopy and positively associated with HCV prevalence for endoscopy and surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Various invasive procedures were significantly associated with HCV infection. Our results provide a ranking of procedures in terms of HCV risk that may be used for prioritisation of infection control interventions, especially in high HCV prevalence settings.

Immunological and clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Available data show that COVID-19 vaccines may be less effective in immunocompromised populations, who are at increased risk of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review of literature to assess immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline and Embase databases. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS: We included studies of COVID-19 vaccines after complete vaccination in immunocompromised patients until 31 August 2021. Studies with <10 patients, safety data only and case series of breakthrough infections were excluded. METHODS: Risk of bias was assessed via the tool developed by the National Institutes of Health on interventional and observational studies. Immunogenicity was assessed through non-response rate defined as no anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies, efficacy and effectiveness by the relative reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19. We collected factors associated with the risk of non-response. We presented collected data by immunosuppression type. RESULTS: We screened 5917 results, included 162 studies. There were 157 on immunogenicity in 25 209 participants, including 7835 cancer or haematological malignancy patients (31.1%), 6302 patients on dialysis (25.0%), 5974 solid organ transplant recipients (23.7%) and 4680 immune-mediated disease patients (18.6%). Proportion of non-responders seemed higher among solid organ transplant recipients (range 18-100%) and patients with haematological malignancy (range 14-61%), and lower in patients with cancer (range 2-36%) and patients on dialysis (range 2-30%). Risk factors for non-response included older age, use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressive or anti-CD20 agent. Ten studies evaluated immunogenicity of an additional dose. Five studies evaluated vaccine efficacy or effectiveness: three on SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 71-81%), one on COVID-19-related hospitalization (62.9%), one had a too small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the risk of low immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations, especially solid organ transplant recipients and patients with haematological malignancy. Despite lack of vaccine effectiveness data, enhanced vaccine regimens may be necessary.