Cargando…

Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in high-risk populations. However, the ideal HCC screening interval and screening modality have not been determined. This study aimed to compare the screening efficacy among different modalities with various intervals....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Jichun, Yang, Zhirong, Zeng, Xueyang, Yu, Shuqing, Gao, Le, Jiang, Yu, Sun, Feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10309520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36921104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002341
_version_ 1785066457822920704
author Yang, Jichun
Yang, Zhirong
Zeng, Xueyang
Yu, Shuqing
Gao, Le
Jiang, Yu
Sun, Feng
author_facet Yang, Jichun
Yang, Zhirong
Zeng, Xueyang
Yu, Shuqing
Gao, Le
Jiang, Yu
Sun, Feng
author_sort Yang, Jichun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in high-risk populations. However, the ideal HCC screening interval and screening modality have not been determined. This study aimed to compare the screening efficacy among different modalities with various intervals. METHODS: PubMed and other nine databases were searched through June 30, 2021. Binary outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Survival rates were also pooled using RR with 95% CIs because most eligible studies only provided the number of survival patients instead of hazard ratio. RESULTS: In all, 13 studies were included. Two random controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies compared screening intervals for ultrasonography (US) screening and found no significant differences between shorter (3- or 4-month) and longer (6- or 12-month) screening intervals in terms of early HCC proportion, HCC significant mortality, 1-year survival rate; screening at 6-month interval significantly increased the proportion of early HCC (RR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08–1.26) and prolonged the 5-year survival rate (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07–1.82) relative to the 12-month interval results. Three other RCTs and two cohort studies compared different screening modalities in cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B, which indicated no statistical differences in the proportion of early HCC (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.40–1.96) and HCC mortality (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.23–2.09) between the biannual US and annual computed tomography (CT screening). Biannual US screening showed a lower proportion of early HCC than biannual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37–0.97) and biannual US combined with annual CT (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.13–1.51) screening. The proportion of early HCC in the contrast-enhanced US group was slightly higher than that in the B-mode US (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00–1.23) group. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that 6 months may be the best HCC screening interval for US screening. The effectiveness of CT and MRI is better than US during same screening intervals. However, MRI and CT are more expensive than US, and CT also can increase the risk of radiation exposure. The selection of CT or MRI instead of US should be carefully considered. REGISTRATION: No. CRD42020148258 at PROSPERO website (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10309520
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103095202023-06-30 Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis Yang, Jichun Yang, Zhirong Zeng, Xueyang Yu, Shuqing Gao, Le Jiang, Yu Sun, Feng Chin Med J (Engl) Meta Analysis BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in high-risk populations. However, the ideal HCC screening interval and screening modality have not been determined. This study aimed to compare the screening efficacy among different modalities with various intervals. METHODS: PubMed and other nine databases were searched through June 30, 2021. Binary outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Survival rates were also pooled using RR with 95% CIs because most eligible studies only provided the number of survival patients instead of hazard ratio. RESULTS: In all, 13 studies were included. Two random controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies compared screening intervals for ultrasonography (US) screening and found no significant differences between shorter (3- or 4-month) and longer (6- or 12-month) screening intervals in terms of early HCC proportion, HCC significant mortality, 1-year survival rate; screening at 6-month interval significantly increased the proportion of early HCC (RR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08–1.26) and prolonged the 5-year survival rate (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07–1.82) relative to the 12-month interval results. Three other RCTs and two cohort studies compared different screening modalities in cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B, which indicated no statistical differences in the proportion of early HCC (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.40–1.96) and HCC mortality (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.23–2.09) between the biannual US and annual computed tomography (CT screening). Biannual US screening showed a lower proportion of early HCC than biannual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37–0.97) and biannual US combined with annual CT (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.13–1.51) screening. The proportion of early HCC in the contrast-enhanced US group was slightly higher than that in the B-mode US (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00–1.23) group. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that 6 months may be the best HCC screening interval for US screening. The effectiveness of CT and MRI is better than US during same screening intervals. However, MRI and CT are more expensive than US, and CT also can increase the risk of radiation exposure. The selection of CT or MRI instead of US should be carefully considered. REGISTRATION: No. CRD42020148258 at PROSPERO website (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-06-05 2023-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC10309520/ /pubmed/36921104 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002341 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Meta Analysis
Yang, Jichun
Yang, Zhirong
Zeng, Xueyang
Yu, Shuqing
Gao, Le
Jiang, Yu
Sun, Feng
Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparative effectiveness of different hepatocellular carcinoma screening intervals or modalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Meta Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10309520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36921104
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002341
work_keys_str_mv AT yangjichun comparativeeffectivenessofdifferenthepatocellularcarcinomascreeningintervalsormodalitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yangzhirong comparativeeffectivenessofdifferenthepatocellularcarcinomascreeningintervalsormodalitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zengxueyang comparativeeffectivenessofdifferenthepatocellularcarcinomascreeningintervalsormodalitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yushuqing comparativeeffectivenessofdifferenthepatocellularcarcinomascreeningintervalsormodalitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gaole comparativeeffectivenessofdifferenthepatocellularcarcinomascreeningintervalsormodalitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jiangyu comparativeeffectivenessofdifferenthepatocellularcarcinomascreeningintervalsormodalitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sunfeng comparativeeffectivenessofdifferenthepatocellularcarcinomascreeningintervalsormodalitiesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis