Pragmatic trial design to compare real-world effectiveness of different treatments for inflammatory bowel diseases: the PRACTICE-IBD European consensus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pragmatic studies designed to test interventions in everyday clinical settings can successfully complement the evidence from registration and explanatory clinical trials. The European consensus project PRACTICE-IBD was developed to identify essential criteria and address key methodological issues needed to design valid comparative pragmatic studies in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). METHODS: Statements were issued by a panel of 11 European experts in IBD management and trial methodology on four main topics: (I) study design; (II) eligibility, recruitment and organization, flexibility; (III) outcomes; (IV) analysis. The consensus process followed a modified Delphi approach, involving two rounds of assessment and rating of the level of agreement (1 to 9; cut-off ≥7 for approval) with the statements by 18 additional European experts in IBD. RESULTS: At the first voting round, 25 out of the 26 statements reached a mean score ≥7. Following the discussion that preceded the second round of voting, it was decided to eliminate two statements and to split one into two. At the second voting round, 25 final statements were approved: 7 for study design, 6 for eligibility, recruitment and organization, flexibility, 8 for outcomes, and 4 for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials can address important questions in IBD clinical practice, and may provide complementary high-level evidence, as long as they follow a methodologically rigorous approach. These 25 statements intend to offer practical guidance in the design of high-quality pragmatic clinical trials that can aid decision making in choosing a management strategy for IBDs.

Multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part II - Non-surgical treatments.

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part I - Surgical treatments.

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of HCC management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the first part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and surgical treatments of HCC.

Accuracy of spleen stiffness measurement for the diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension is crucial for prognosis and treatment guidance in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD). Spleen stiffness measurement (SSM) might improve the non-invasive diagnosis of clinically significant portal hypertension, but previous studies have reported heterogeneous SSM cutoffs. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of SSM and SSM-based algorithms in this setting. METHODS: In this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to Dec 31, 2022, for articles, abstracts, and letters, with no restrictions on language. Cross-sectional studies reporting hepatic venous pressure gradient and SSM by different techniques (transient elastography; two-dimensional shear-wave elastography [2D-SWE]; point shear-wave elastography [p-SWE]) in adults (≥18 years) with compensated ACLD were eligible for inclusion. The main outcome was the diagnostic performance of two SSM-based algorithms, with the Baveno VII model as a reference, evaluating sensitivity and specificity, as well as summary negative predictive values (NPVs) and positive predictive values (PPVs). In the Baveno VII model, clinically significant portal hypertension was ruled out if patients had a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) of 15 kPa or less and a platelet count of 150 × 109 platelets per L or higher and ruled in if they had an LSM of greater than 25 kPa. The two SSM-based models combined these same cutoffs with additional criteria. In the Baveno VII-SSM single cutoff model, clinically significant portal hypertension was ruled out if at least two of the following were present: LSM of 15 kPa or less, platelet count of 150 × 109 platelets per L or higher, and SSM of 40 kPa or less; and ruled in if at least two were present: LSM of greater than 25 kPa, platelet count of less than 150 × 109 platelets per L, and SSM of greater than 40 kPa. The Baveno VII-SSM dual cutoff model used the same criteria, but with a cutoff of SSM of less than 21 kPa to rule out, and greater than 50 kPa to rule in, clinically significant portal hypertension. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019127164. FINDINGS: Of the 44 records assessed for eligibility, 17 studies (with 1245 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. In the transient elastography cohort (n=600), the Baveno VII algorithm was validated for both ruling out (NPV 100%, 95% CI 64-100; sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 70-100) and ruling in (PPV 95%, 85-98; specificity 94%, 95% CI 87-97) clinically significant portal hypertension, but the proportion of patients with indeterminate results (grey zone) was 48% (95% CI 44-52); 57% (95% CI 52-62) of patients with clinically significant portal hypertension were included in the rule-in zone. The Baveno VII-SSM dual cutoff model had adequate NPV (98%, 95% CI 58-100; sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 91-100) and PPV (93%, 95% CI 84-97; specificity 89%, 95% CI 84-93), with 32% (95% CI 28-36) of patients in the grey zone; 76% (95% CI 72-80) of the patients with clinically significant portal hypertension were in the rule-in zone. The Baveno VII-SSM single cutoff model had a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 85-97) and a NPV of 85% (95% CI 60-96) for ruling out, and a specificity of 86% (95% CI 80-91) and a PPV of 92% (95% CI 83-95) for ruling in, clinically significant portal hypertension. 88% (95% CI 84-91) of patients with clinically significant portal hypertension were included in the rule-in zone and 9% (95% CI 7-12) of patients were in the grey zone. In the 2D-SWE cohort (n=225), all three algorithms could safely rule in clinically significant portal hypertension with adequate PPV (≥90%), but NPV was inadequate for ruling out clinically significant portal hypertension. Insufficient data were available to evaluate the performance of SSM assessed by p-SWE. Heterogeneity was low (I2<25%) for most estimates. INTERPRETATION: Algorithms combining Baveno VII criteria with SSM showed good performance and reduced the diagnostic grey zone for clinically significant portal hypertension compared with Baveno VII criteria alone. Future studies should evaluate whether SSM-based diagnosis allows for the identification of patients who would benefit from non-selective ß-blocker treatment. FUNDING: None.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors infusion for people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Advanced chronic liver disease is characterised by a long compensated phase followed by a rapidly progressive 'decompensated' phase, which is marked by the development of complications of portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Advanced chronic liver disease is considered responsible for more than one million deaths annually worldwide. No treatment is available to specifically target fibrosis and cirrhosis; liver transplantation remains the only curative option. Researchers are investigating strategies to restore liver functionality to avoid or slow progression towards end-stage liver disease. Cytokine mobilisation of stem cells from the bone marrow to the liver could improve liver function. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a 175-amino-acid protein currently available for mobilisation of haematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow. Multiple courses of G-CSF, with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, might be associated with accelerated hepatic regeneration, improved liver function, and survival. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of G-CSF with or without stem or progenitor cell or growth factors (erythropoietin or growth hormone) infusion, compared with no intervention or placebo in people with compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers (October 2022) together with reference-checking and web-searching to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions on language and document type. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised clinical trials comparing G-CSF, independent of the schedule of administration, as a single treatment or combined with stem or progenitor cell infusion, or with other medical co-interventions, with no intervention or placebo, in adults with chronic compensated or decompensated advanced chronic liver disease or acute-on-chronic liver failure. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, outcomes reported, or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane procedures. All-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life were our primary outcomes, and liver disease-related morbidity, non-serious adverse events, and no improvement of liver function scores were our secondary outcomes. We undertook meta-analyses, based on intention-to-treat, and presented results using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I2 statistic values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE, evaluated the risk of small-study effects in regression analyses, and conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (1419 participants; sample size ranged from 28 to 259), which lasted between 11 and 57 months. Nineteen trials included only participants with decompensated cirrhosis; in one trial, 30% had compensated cirrhosis. The included trials were conducted in Asia (15), Europe (four), and the USA (one). Not all trials provided data for our outcomes. All trials reported data allowing intention-to-treat analyses. The experimental intervention consisted of G-CSF alone or G-CSF plus any of the following: growth hormone, erythropoietin, N-acetyl cysteine, infusion of CD133-positive haemopoietic stem cells, or infusion of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells. The control group consisted of no intervention in 15 trials and placebo (normal saline) in five trials. Standard medical therapy (antivirals, alcohol abstinence, nutrition, diuretics, ß-blockers, selective intestinal decontamination, pentoxifylline, prednisolone, and other supportive measures depending on the clinical status and requirement) was administered equally to the trial groups. Very low-certainty evidence suggested a decrease in mortality with G-CSF, administered alone or in combination with any of the above, versus placebo (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.72; I2 = 75%; 1419 participants; 20 trials). Very low-certainty evidence suggested no difference in serious adverse events (G-CSF alone or in combination versus placebo: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.61; I2 = 66%; 315 participants; three trials). Eight trials, with 518 participants, reported no serious adverse events. Two trials, with 165 participants, used two components of the quality of life score for assessment, with ranges from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better quality of life, with a mean increase from baseline of the physical component summary of 20.7 (95% CI 17.4 to 24.0; very low-certainty evidence) and a mean increase from baseline of the mental component summary of 27.8 (95% CI 12.3 to 43.3; very low-certainty evidence). G-CSF, alone or in combination, suggested a beneficial effect on the proportion of participants who developed one or more liver disease-related complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92; I2 = 62%; 195 participants; four trials; very low-certainty evidence). When we analysed the occurrences of single complications, there was no suggestion of a difference between G-CSF, alone or in combination, versus control, in participants in need of liver transplantation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.85; 692 participants; five trials), in the development of hepatorenal syndrome (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.30; 520 participants; six trials), in the occurrence of variceal bleeding (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.23; 614 participants; eight trials), and in the development of encephalopathy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.01; 605 participants; seven trials) (very low-certainty evidence). The same comparison suggested that G-CSF reduces the development of infections (including sepsis) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84; 583 participants; eight trials) and does not improve liver function scores (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; 319 participants; two trials) (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF, alone or in combination, seems to decrease mortality in people with decompensated advanced chronic liver disease of whatever aetiology and with or without acute-on-chronic liver failure, but the certainty of evidence is very low because of high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The results of trials conducted in Asia and Europe were discrepant; this could not be explained by differences in participant selection, intervention, and outcome measurement. Data on serious adverse events and health-related quality of life were few and inconsistently reported. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the occurrence of one or more liver disease-related complications. We lack high-quality, global randomised clinical trials assessing the effect of G-CSF on clinically relevant outcomes.

The potential role of machine learning in modelling advanced chronic liver disease.

The use of artificial intelligence is rapidly increasing in medicine to support clinical decision making mostly through diagnostic and prediction models. Such models derive from huge databases (big data) including a large variety of health-related individual patient data (input) and the corresponding diagnosis and/or outcome (labels). Various types of algorithms (e.g. neural networks) based on powerful computational ability (machine), allow to detect the relationship between input and labels (learning). More complex algorithms, like recurrent neural network can learn from previous as well as actual input (deep learning) and are used for more complex tasks like imaging analysis and personalized (bespoke) medicine. The prompt availability of big data makes that artificial intelligence can provide rapid answers to questions that would require years of traditional clinical research. It may therefore be a key tool to overcome several major gaps in the model of advanced chronic liver disease, mostly transition from mild to clinically significant portal hypertension, the impact of acute decompensation and the role of further decompensation and treatment efficiency. However, several limitations of artificial intelligence should be overcome before its application in clinical practice. Assessment of the risk of bias, understandability of the black boxes developing the models and models' validation are the most important areas deserving clarification for artificial intelligence to be widely accepted from physicians and patients.

European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation According to Value-Based Health Care.

Liver transplantation is a highly complex, life-saving, treatment for many patients with advanced liver disease. Liver transplantation requires multidisciplinary teams, system-wide adaptations and significant investment, as well as being an expensive treatment. Several metrics have been proposed to monitor processes and outcomes, however these lack patient focus and do not capture all aspects of the process. Most of the reported outcomes do not capture those outcomes that matter to the patients. Adopting the principles of Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), may provide an opportunity to develop those metrics that matter to patients. In this article, we present a Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation following the principles of VBHC, developed by a dedicated panel of experts under the auspices of the European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Guidelines' Taskforce. The overarching goal is to provide a framework to facilitate the development of outcome measures as an initial step to apply the VMC paradigm to liver transplantation.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease. Worldwide, it ranks sixth in terms of incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer-related deaths. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is used as an add-on test to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma after prior diagnostic tests such as abdominal ultrasound or measurement of alpha-foetoprotein, or both. According to guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging investigation, with either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may show the typical hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks in people with cirrhosis, which will be sufficient to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas show atypical imaging features, and therefore, are missed at imaging. Dynamic CEUS images are obtained similarly to CT and MRI images. CEUS differentiates between arterial and portal venous phases, in which sonographic hepatocellular carcinoma hallmarks, such as arterial hyperenhancement and subsequent washout appearance, are investigated. The advantages of CEUS over CT and MRI include real-time imaging, use of contrast agents that do not contain iodine and are not nephrotoxic, and quick image acquisition. Despite the advantages, the use of CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm for HCC remains controversial, with disagreement on relevant guidelines. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival as the conflicting results can be a consequence of an inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Therefore, assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is needed for either diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma or ruling it out in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. 2. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with chronic liver disease and identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The last date of search was 5 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods to screen studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We used the bivariate model and provided estimates of summary sensitivity and specificity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We presented uncertainty-of-the-accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies with 6546 participants. Studies were published between 2001 and 2021. We judged all 23 studies at high-risk of bias in at least one domain, and 13/23 studies at high concern for applicability. Most studies used different reference standards to exclude the presence of the target condition. The time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. We also had major concerns on their applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. - CEUS for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.8% (95% CI 69.4% to 84.4%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 89.1% to 96.6%) (23 studies, 6546 participants; very low-certainty evidence). - CEUS for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 62.9% to 87.6%) and specificity 92.7% (95% CI 86.8% to 96.1%) (13 studies, 1257 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, including only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted with no knowledge of the results about the index test, showed no differences in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that by using CEUS, as an add-on test following abdominal ultrasound, to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would unnecessarily undergo further testing or inappropriate treatment. As to resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 23% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would incorrectly be unresected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo further inappropriate testing or treatment. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias of the included studies, heterogeneity, and imprecision of the results and concerns on their applicability limit our ability to draw confident conclusions.

Benign liver lesions 2022: Guideline for clinical practice of Associazione Italiana Studio del Fegato (AISF), Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB), Associazione Italiana di Chirurgia Epatobilio-Pancreatica (AICEP), Società Italiana Trapianti d'Organo (SITO), Società Italiana di Anatomia Patologica e Citologia Diagnostica (SIAPEC-IAP) - Part II - Solid lesions.

Benign liver lesions are increasingly diagnosed in daily clinical practice due to the growing use of imaging techniques for the study of the abdomen in patients who have non-specific symptoms and do not have an increased risk of hepatic malignancy. They include simple or parasitic hepatic cysts and solid benign tumors which differ widely in terms of prevalence, clinical relevance, symptoms and natural history and often lead to significant clinical problems relating to diagnosis and clinical management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the management of benign focal liver lesions, the Scientific Societies mainly involved in their management have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the present Italian rules and methodologies necessary to produce clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic guidelines based on evidence. Here we present the second part of the guideline, concerning the diagnosis and clinical management of hemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia, and hepatocellular adenoma.

Benign liver lesions 2022: Guideline for clinical practice of Associazione Italiana Studio del Fegato (AISF), Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB), Associazione Italiana di Chirurgia Epatobilio-Pancreatica (AICEP), Società Italiana Trapianti d'Organo (SITO), Società Italiana di Anatomia Patologica e Citologia Diagnostica (SIAPEC-IAP) - Part I - Cystic lesions.

Benign liver lesions are increasingly diagnosed in daily clinical practice due to the growing use of imaging techniques for the study of the abdomen in patients who have non-specific symptoms and do not have an increased risk of hepatic malignancy. They include simple or parasitic cysts and solid benign tumors which differ widely in terms of prevalence, clinical relevance, symptoms and natural history and often lead to significant clinical problems relating to diagnosis and clinical management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the management of benign focal liver lesions, the Scientific Societies mainly involved in their management have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the present Italian rules and methodologies necessary to produce clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic guidelines based on evidence. Here we present the first part of the guideline, concerning the characterization of focal hepatic lesions detected by ultrasound, and the diagnosis and clinical management of simple and parasitic hepatic cysts, and of polycystic liver disease.

Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and third in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-fetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study (computed tomography (CT) or MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is considered valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma amenable to surgical resection could improve the prognosis. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma may, therefore, be missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of MRI in people with chronic liver disease who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity in the results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic Test of Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 9 November 2021. We manually searched articles retrieved, contacted experts, handsearched abstract books from meetings held during the last 10 years, and searched for literature in OpenGrey (9 November 2021). Further information was requested by e-mails, but no additional information was provided. No data was obtained through correspondence with investigators. We applied no language or document-type restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and we tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies, with 4841 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability, we judged 15% (5/34) of studies to be at low concern and 85% (29/34) of studies to be at high concern mostly owing to characteristics of the participants, most of whom were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation, and due to pathology of the explanted liver being the only reference standard. MRI for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 84.4% (95% CI 80.1% to 87.9%) and specificity 93.8% (95% CI 90.1% to 96.1%) (34 studies, 4841 participants; low-certainty evidence). MRI for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI 77.6% to 89.3%) and specificity 92.9% (95% CI 88.3% to 95.9%) (16 studies, 2150 participants; low-certainty evidence). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that using MRI as a second-line imaging modality to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 16% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 6% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 16% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Spleen Stiffness Measurements Predict the Risk of Hepatic Decompensation After Direct-Acting Antivirals in HCV Cirrhotic Patients.

PURPOSE: Little evidence is available regarding the risk of hepatic decompensation (HD) after direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in patients with advanced chronic liver disease. Our aim was to assess the risk of decompensation and the prognostic role of noninvasive tests, such as liver (LSM) and spleen (SSM) stiffness measurements, in the prediction of decompensation after sustained virologic response (SVR) by DAAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort study involving 146 cirrhotic patients treated with DAAs in our tertiary center with LSM and SSM available both before and six months after treatment (SVR24). A historical cohort of 92 consecutive cirrhotic patients with active HCV was used as a control group. A propensity score inverse probability weighting method was used to account for differences between the groups. Time-dependent models for the prediction of decompensation were applied to account for changes in noninvasive tests after therapy. RESULTS: The decompensation incidence in the DAA cohort was 7.07 (4.56-10.96) per 100 person-years (PYs), which was significantly lower than in the active HCV cohort. The DAA therapy was an independent protective factor for HD development (SHR: 0.071, 95 %-CI: 0.015-0.332). SSM ≥ 54 kPa was independently associated with decompensation despite SVR achievement (SHR: 4.169, 95 %-CI: 1.050-16.559), alongside with a history of decompensation (SHR: 7.956, 95 %-CI: 2.556-24.762). SSM reduction < 10 % also predicted the risk of decompensation after SVR24. CONCLUSION: The risk of decompensation was markedly reduced after DAA therapy, but it was not eliminated. Paired SSM values stratified the risk of decompensation after SVR better than other noninvasive tests.

Computed tomography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, computed tomography (CT) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-foetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma is, therefore, missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CT in people with chronic liver disease, who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multidetector, multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, either in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Trials Register, Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Diagnostic-Test-Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until 4 May 2021. We applied no language or document-type restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies, with a total of 3101 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time-interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability in the patient selection domain, we judged 14% (3/21) of studies to be at low concern and 86% (18/21) of studies to be at high concern owing to characteristics of the participants who were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation. CT for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 70.9% to 82.9%) and specificity 91.3% (95% CI 86.5% to 94.5%) (21 studies, 3101 participants; low-certainty evidence). CT for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 71.4% (95% CI 60.3% to 80.4%) and specificity 92.0% (95% CI 86.3% to 95.5%) (10 studies, 1854 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the three studies at low concern for applicability (861 participants), we found sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI 50.8% to 91.5%) and specificity 89.2% (95% CI 57.0% to 98.1%). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, CT has roles as a confirmatory test for hepatocellular carcinoma lesions, and for staging assessment. We found that using CT in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22.5% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 8.7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 28.6% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Definition of Healthy Ranges for Alanine Aminotransferase Levels: A 2021 Update.

The changing epidemiology of liver disease, and modifications in the recommended analytical methodology call for a re-evaluation of the upper reference limits (URLs) of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. Using the same approach consolidated 20 years ago to define the healthy population, we defined the URL for the newly recommended International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) standardized test. In a cross-sectional study, we examined 21,296 apparently healthy blood donors (age 18-65 years) and calculated the sex-specific URL by the 95th percentile in individuals without risk factors for liver disease. These were tested for the ability to predict liver damage in a subset of 745 participants with dysmetabolism, in an independent cohort of 977 unselected donors, and in 899 patients with chronic liver disease. ALT levels were measured by the IFCC test. Male sex, body mass index, glucose, lipids, ferritin, hypertension, and younger age were independent ALT predictors (P < 0.001). Updated URLs were identified at 42/30 U/L in males/females, approximately 30% lower than those currently recommended by the IFCC. Due to improved sensitivity, they conferred the ability to detect steatosis and significant fibrosis in individuals with dysmetabolism (odds ratio [OR] = 2.31, range 1.40-3.80, P = 0.001; and OR = 3.35, range 1.19-9.42, P = 0.021; respectively), although with a limited accuracy, and significant fibrosis in unselected donors (OR = 2.32, 1.02-5.31, P = 0.045). Updated URLs had a moderate to high accuracy to discriminate liver conditions (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.81, range 0.78-0.91). Conclusion: Updated URLs by the IFCC method were lower than those calculated in initial studies, but higher than those in use with the recommended old, nonstandardized method, and were able to better predict liver disease. The limited awareness that different techniques are still in use should be regarded as a possible source of medical errors.

Performance of the model for end-stage liver disease score for mortality prediction and the potential role of etiology.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although the discriminative ability of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is generally considered acceptable, its calibration is still unclear. In a validation study, we assessed the discriminative performance and calibration of 3 versions of the model: original MELD-TIPS, used to predict survival after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS); classic MELD-Mayo; and MELD-UNOS, used by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). We also explored recalibrating and updating the model. METHODS: In total, 776 patients who underwent elective TIPS (TIPS cohort) and 445 unselected patients (non-TIPS cohort) were included. Three, 6 and 12-month mortality predictions were calculated by the 3 MELD versions: discrimination was assessed by c-statistics and calibration by comparing deciles of predicted and observed risks. Cox and Fine and Grey models were used for recalibration and prognostic analyses. RESULTS: In the TIPS/non-TIPS cohorts, the etiology of liver disease was viral in 402/188, alcoholic in 185/130, and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in 65/33; mean follow-up±SD was 25±9/19±21 months; and the number of deaths at 3-6-12 months was 57-102-142/31-47-99, respectively. C-statistics ranged from 0.66 to 0.72 in TIPS and 0.66 to 0.76 in non-TIPS cohorts across prediction times and scores. A post hoc analysis revealed worse c-statistics in non-viral cirrhosis with more pronounced and significant worsening in the non-TIPS cohort. Calibration was acceptable with MELD-TIPS but largely unsatisfactory with MELD-Mayo and -UNOS whose performance improved much after recalibration. A prognostic analysis showed that age, albumin, and TIPS indication might be used to update the MELD. CONCLUSIONS: In this validation study, the performance of the MELD score was largely unsatisfactory, particularly in non-viral cirrhosis. MELD recalibration and candidate variables for an update to the MELD score are proposed. LAY SUMMARY: While the discriminative performance of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is credited to be fair to good, its calibration, the correspondence of observed to predicted mortality, is still unsettled. We found that application of 3 different versions of the MELD in 2 independent cirrhosis cohorts yielded largely imprecise mortality predictions particularly in non-viral cirrhosis. Thus, we propose a recalibration and suggest candidate variables for an update to the model.

Abdominal ultrasound and alpha-foetoprotein for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global instances of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer deaths for men. Despite that abdominal ultrasound (US) is used as an initial test to exclude the presence of focal liver lesions and serum alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) measurement may raise suspicion of HCC occurrence, further testing to confirm diagnosis as well as staging of HCC is required. Current guidelines recommend surveillance programme using US, with or without AFP, to detect HCC in high-risk populations despite the lack of clear benefits on overall survival. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP may clarify whether the absence of benefit in surveillance programmes could be related to under-diagnosis. Therefore, assessment of the accuracy of these two tests for diagnosing HCC in people with chronic liver disease, not included in surveillance programmes, is needed. OBJECTIVES: Primary: the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP, alone or in combination, for the diagnosis of HCC of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, either in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal US and AFP, alone or in combination, for the diagnosis of resectable HCC; to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the individual tests versus the combination of both tests; to investigate sources of heterogeneity in the results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic-Test-Accuracy Studies Register, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, until 5 June 2020. We applied no language or document-type restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP, independently or in combination, for the diagnosis of HCC in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional and case-control designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion, or typical characteristics on computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging, all with a six-months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest-plots, and tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 373 studies. The index-test was AFP (326 studies, 144,570 participants); US (39 studies, 18,792 participants); and a combination of AFP and US (eight studies, 5454 participants). We judged at high-risk of bias all but one study. Most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time-interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Most studies with AFP had a case-control design. We also had major concerns for the applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. As the primary studies with AFP used different cut-offs, we performed a meta-analysis using the hierarchical-summary-receiver-operating-characteristic model, then we carried out two meta-analyses including only studies reporting the most used cut-offs: around 20 ng/mL or 200 ng/mL. AFP cut-off 20 ng/mL: for HCC (147 studies) sensitivity 60% (95% CI 58% to 62%), specificity 84% (95% CI 82% to 86%); for resectable HCC (six studies) sensitivity 65% (95% CI 62% to 68%), specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 91%). AFP cut-off 200 ng/mL: for HCC (56 studies) sensitivity 36% (95% CI 31% to 41%), specificity 99% (95% CI 98% to 99%); for resectable HCC (two studies) one with sensitivity 4% (95% CI 0% to 19%), specificity 100% (95% CI 96% to 100%), and one with sensitivity 8% (95% CI 3% to 18%), specificity 100% (95% CI 97% to 100%). US: for HCC (39 studies) sensitivity 72% (95% CI 63% to 79%), specificity 94% (95% CI 91% to 96%); for resectable HCC (seven studies) sensitivity 53% (95% CI 38% to 67%), specificity 96% (95% CI 94% to 97%). Combination of AFP (cut-off of 20 ng/mL) and US: for HCC (six studies) sensitivity 96% (95% CI 88% to 98%), specificity 85% (95% CI 73% to 93%); for resectable HCC (two studies) one with sensitivity 89% (95% CI 73% to 97%), specificity of 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%), and one with sensitivity 79% (95% CI 54% to 94%), specificity 87% (95% CI 79% to 94%). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained, and only in part referable to different cut-offs or settings (surveillance programme compared to clinical series). The sensitivity analyses, excluding studies published as abstracts, or with case-control design, showed no variation in the results. We compared the accuracy obtained from studies with AFP (cut-off around 20 ng/mL) and US: a direct comparison in 11 studies (6674 participants) showed a higher sensitivity of US (81%, 95% CI 66% to 90%) versus AFP (64%, 95% CI 56% to 71%) with similar specificity: US 92% (95% CI 83% to 97%) versus AFP 89% (95% CI 79% to 94%). A direct comparison of six studies (5044 participants) showed a higher sensitivity (96%, 95% CI 88% to 98%) of the combination of AFP and US versus US (76%, 95% CI 56% to 89%) with similar specificity: AFP and US 85% (95% CI 73% to 92%) versus US 93% (95% CI 80% to 98%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of HCC in adults, AFP and US, singularly or in combination, have the role of triage-tests. We found that using AFP, with 20 ng/mL as a cut-off, about 40% of HCC occurrences would be missed, and with US alone, more than a quarter. The combination of the two tests showed the highest sensitivity and less than 5% of HCC occurrences would be missed with about 15% of false-positive results. The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Is pocket-size ultrasound a reliable tool for bowel investigation? A study on its feasibility, reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) examination is a first-line non-invasive imaging procedure for patients with suspicion of bowel diseases. AIM: To assess the feasibility, reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy of a pocket-size ultrasound device (PUD) in identifying the presence of intestinal alterations in patients consecutively recruited to undergo IUS examination. METHODS: 200 consecutive patients (57% female, 48.8 years) underwent both PUD (two independent investigators) and IUS examination on the same day. Nine ultrasonographic signs were systematically searched for. PUD inter-observer reproducibility was assessed by kappa statistic and ICC. The diagnostic accuracy of PUD as compared to IUS results was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity and corresponding positive and negative likelihood ratios. RESULTS: PUD and IUS examinations were successful in 100% of the patients. PUD reproducibility was good/excellent at evidencing the presence (ICC 0.84) and length (ICC 0.85) of an intestinal tract with thickened wall and abdominal free fluid (ICC 0.87). The diagnostic accuracy of PUD, compared to traditional IUS, was good with regard to the presence of bowel wall thickening (sensitivity 92%, specificity 95%), the length of the thickened bowel (sensitivity 94%, specificity 95%) and the presence of free fluid (sensitivity 81%, specificity 99%). CONCLUSIONS: PUD is a feasible, reproducible and accurate first-line screening tool for the assessment of the gastro-intestinal tract.