Efficacy of entecavir versus tenofovir in preventing hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B with maintained virologic response.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several studies suggested that efficacy of tenofovir in reducing the risk of the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might be better than that of entecavir. It remains unknown whether a change in therapy can further reduce the risk of HCC in patients receiving entecavir therapy and achieved goal of antiviral therapy, a maintained undetectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level in the serum. METHODS: A total of 1336 treatment-naïve chronic HBV mono-infected adult patients, who started entecavir or tenofovir treatment and achieved a maintained virologic response during follow-up were analysed. RESULTS: During a median 4.4 years of follow-up (range, 1.0-7.4 years) after achieving virologic response, 99 patients developed HCC. The 5-year cumulative HCC incidence rate was 7.3% and 6.3% for the entecavir and tenofovir groups, respectively, with similar risk of HCC between the two groups (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.29; p = 0.3). The risk of HCC was similar in the propensity score-matched cohort (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.52; p = 0.94) and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.74-1.66; p = 0.62). In the subgroup analysis, HCC risk was similar between the two drugs in both patients with and without cirrhosis. DISCUSSION: In patients showing maintained virologic response, no difference in the risk of HCC between entecavir and tenofovir was observed. This indicates entecavir might be as effective as tenofovir in the prevention of HCC among those patients and suggest that a change in therapy in anticipation of further reducing the risk of HCC might not be necessary for patients receiving entecavir and showing virologic response.

Long-Term Safety of Delayed Surgery After Upfront Endoscopic Resection for Early Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: When non-curative resection is confirmed after endoscopic resection (ER) of early gastric cancer (EGC), delayed surgery is recommended because it provides favorable survival outcomes. Long-term outcome after surgery of EGC with or without previous ER has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term oncologic safety between primary surgery and delayed surgery after ER. METHODS: Patients who had undergone curative surgery (R0) for EGC were included and were divided into primary and delayed surgery groups. Primary surgery was defined as gastrectomy without ER for EGC, whereas delayed surgery was defined as additional curative gastrectomy due to non-curative resection after ER; an average delay of 21.5 days (range 1-195) was observed. Propensity score matching was performed. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1439 patients were included, of whom 1042 (72.4%) were in the primary surgery group and 397 (27.6%) were in the delayed surgery group. The OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.27; p = 0.459), CSS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15-1.47; p = 0.196), and DFS (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.15-1.90; p = 0.334) were not different. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term outcomes of delayed surgery after non-curative ER for EGC were non-inferior to primary surgery. Therefore, an attempt for ER of EGC that satisfies the absolute and expanded indication seems justified for preventing gastrectomy. In case of non-curative resection after ER, additional delayed surgery should be performed.