Evaluating screening approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma in a cohort of HCV related cirrhosis patients from the Veteran’s Affairs Health Care System
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has limited treatment options in patients with advanced stage disease and early detection of HCC through surveillance programs is a key component towards reducing mortality. The current practice guidelines recommend that high-risk cirrhosis patients are screened every six months with ultrasonography but these are done in local hospitals with variable quality leading to disagreement about the benefit of HCC surveillance. The well-established diagnostic biomarker α-Fetoprotein (AFP) is used widely in screening but the reported performance varies widely across studies. We evaluate two biomarker screening approaches, a six-month risk prediction model and a parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) algorithm, in terms of their ability to improve the likelihood of early detection of HCC compared to current AFP alone when applied prospectively in a future study. METHODS: We used electronic medical records from the Department of Veterans Affairs Hepatitis C Clinical Case Registry to construct our analysis cohort, which consists of serial AFP tests in 11,222 cirrhosis control patients and 902 HCC cases prior to their HCC diagnosis. The six-month risk prediction model incorporates routinely measured laboratory tests, age, the rate of change in AFP over the past year with the current AFP. The PEB algorithm incorporates prior AFP screening values to identify patients with a significant elevated level of AFP at their current screen. We split the analysis cohort into independent training and validation datasets. All model fitting and parameter estimation was performed using the training data and the algorithm performance was assessed by applying each approach to patients in the validation dataset. RESULTS: When the screening-level false positive rate was set at 10%, the patient-level true positive rate using current AFP alone was 53.88% while the patient-level true positive rate for the six-month risk prediction model was 58.09% (4.21% increase) and PEB approach was 63.64% (9.76% increase). Both screening approaches identify a greater proportion of HCC cases earlier than using AFP alone. CONCLUSIONS: The two approaches show greater potential to improve early detection of HCC compared to using the current AFP only and are worthy of further study.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Formulating experience sampling method questions in the patient's own words may increase their ability to answer accurately and increase compliance.
“Formulating questions in the patient’s own words may also increase their ability to answer accurately and increase compliance [32].”
From Using person-specific networks in psychotherapy: challenges, limitations, and how we could use them anyway (2020) · cites this paper as [32]
Studies that apply non-personalized experience sampling method questionnaires in clinical samples, including those from our own group, have used a similar or higher number of questions, and compliance rates suggest a manageable burden for participants.
“Studies that apply (non-personalized) ESM questionnaires in clinical samples, including those from our own group, have used a similar or higher number of questions [32–35], and compliance rates suggest a manageable burden for participants.”
From Using person-specific networks in psychotherapy: challenges, limitations, and how we could use them anyway (2020) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 217
- Authors
- Tayob, N., Richardson, P., White, D. L., Yu, X., Davila, J. A., Kanwal, F., Feng, Z., & El-Serag, H. B.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
- The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tayob, Nabihah
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2018-01-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5753461
- OpenAlex
- W2782197291
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 10.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA190776)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Hepatitis B Virus Studies
- Keywords
- hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatitis C cirrhosis, cancer screening, alpha-fetoprotein, HCC surveillance, risk prediction model, early detection, veterans
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, alpha-Fetoproteins, Bayes Theorem, Female, Hepatitis C, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Humans, Liver Cirrhosis, Liver Neoplasms, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Biomarkers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review