Patients with non-viral liver disease have a greater tumor burden and less curative treatment options when diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: To assess the impact of underlying liver disease etiology on the presenting features and outcomes in a large cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: A prospective database of all patients with HCC was established from 1998 to March 2012. One thousand and seventy-eight patients were categorized into three groups, based on the etiology of their liver disease: hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and non-viral liver disease (NVLD). Overall survival was determined by Kaplan Meier analysis to time of death or last follow-up. RESULTS: HCC patients with HCV (85%) were more likely to be diagnosed as part of a surveillance program, compared to HBV or NVLD (both 71%) (P < 0.001). Patients with NVLD were more likely to receive best supportive care (29%) compared to those with HBV (21%) or HCV (20%) (P < 0.02). Twelve percent of NVLD and 13% of HBV patients underwent liver transplantation compared to 21% of HCV patients (P = 0.001). Median survival from presentation was lowest in NVLD (1.7 years) when compared to HBV (2.8 years) and HCV (2.6 years) (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of survival included Child Turcotte Pugh score, size of dominant lesion, absence of vascular invasion, and management with surgical resection or liver transplantation. Patient age and the etiology of the underlying liver disease were not independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with NVLD and HCC were less likely to be enrolled in a HCC surveillance program and are less likely to have curative therapies such as liver resection and transplantation after diagnosis with HCC, when compared to patients with Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C.

Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: which patients are most likely to gain a survival advantage?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are considered to confer a survival advantage, however, the patient group that should be targeted is not clearly defined. This study aimed to determine the impact on survival of locoregional therapies compared with supportive care, within prognostic categories as stratified by the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) scoring system. METHODS: A prospective database was used to identify those patients who were treated with either locoregional therapy (n = 128) or supportive care (n = 92). Survival analysis was performed for groups matched by CLIP score at presentation. Comparison of important prognostic factors was undertaken and univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to assess determinants of survival. RESULTS: Use of locoregional therapies was only associated with a survival benefit in patients with a CLIP score of 1 or 2. In this group, the median survival in patients who received locoregional therapies was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval 22.7-27.4) compared with 8.9 months (95% confidence interval 7.3-10.5) for supportive care (P = 0.001). For patients with CLIP scores of 3 or greater, no survival benefit of locoregional therapies was observed. Multivariate analysis revealed locoregional intervention, CLIP score, tumor symptoms, alpha-fetoprotein level, bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase level as independent prognostic indicators. CONCLUSION: Locoregional therapies should be targeted specifically to patients with non-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma as assessed by validated scoring systems. Use of these therapies in patients with advanced disease does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit and may expose patients to unnecessary harm.

Outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma referred to a tertiary centre with availability of multiple treatment options including cadaveric liver transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a primary cancer of the liver with an established causal link to viral hepatitis and other forms of chronic liver disease. AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyse the determinants of outcome in patients with HCC referred to a tertiary centre for management. METHOD: Two hundred and thirty-five prospective patients with HCC and minimum 12-month follow-up were studied. RESULTS: The cohort was heterogeneous, with 52% Caucasian, 40% Asian and 5% of Middle-Eastern origin. Independent predictors of outcome included tumour size and number, the presence of ascites or portal vein thrombosis, alpha-foetoprotein >50 U/L and an impaired performance status. Treatment was determined on an individual case basis by a multidisciplinary tumour team. Surgical resection was primary treatment in 43 patients, liver transplantation in 40 patients, local ablation (percutaneous radiofrequency ablation or alcohol injection) in 33 patients, transarterial chemoembolisation in 33 patients, chemotherapy or other systemic therapy in 30 patients and no treatment in 56 patients. After adjustment for significant covariates, both liver transplantation (P<0.001) and surgical resection (P=0.029) had a significant effect on patient survival compared with no treatment, but local ablation (P=0.410) and chemoembolisation (P=0.831) did not. Liver transplantation resulted in superior overall and, in particular, disease-free survival compared with surgical resection (disease-free survival 84 vs 15% at 5 years). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, both surgical resection and liver transplantation significantly improve the survival of patients with HCC, but improvements need to be made to the delivery of loco-regional therapy to enhance its effectiveness.