Article Text

PDF

Hepatocellular carcinoma: is surveillance cost effective?
  1. J BRUIX,
  2. J M LLOVET
  1. BCLC Group, Liver Unit, Hospital Clínic
  2. IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
  1. Dr J Bruix, BCLC Group, Liver Unit, Hospital Clínic, University of Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036-Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. jbruix{at}clinic.ub.es

Statistics from Altmetric.com

See article on page 251

The development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitutes a frequent event during the evolution of patients with liver cirrhosis (3–5% annual incidence rate) and constitutes their main cause of death.1 Survival is related to tumour stage at diagnosis and to the degree of impairment of liver function. Recent data have shown thatsurvival after diagnosis is not as poor as reported years ago.2 This is due both to advances in diagnosis even in the absence of effective treatment (lead time bias) and to the application of curative treatments (surgical resection, liver transplantation, and percutaneous ablation).2 These offer the only chance of cure but their applicability and long term success with five year survival exceeding 50% require the detection of HCC at an early stage, including patients with solitary nodules ⩽5 cm or up to three nodules each ⩽3 cm.2-5 In contrast, large/multifocal tumours are less likely to benefit from curative approaches and here three year survival falls below 50% regardless of treatment.2 The need for detection of HCC at an early stage has prompted surveillance programmes for patients with cirrhosis. HCC has most requisites for such a policy6: the population at risk is known, the disease is highly prevalent, it has a high mortality, and effective screening tests are available and acceptable. However, other conditions are not yet met: the recall policy on raising suspicion is not well defined and, unfortunately, there is no unequivocal proof that treatment improves survival. Radical therapies have never been evaluated in randomised controlled trials but are widely considered “effective” and assumed to improve survival.3-5 In contrast, randomised controlled trials assessing palliative treatments (that is, chemoembolisation) have shown negative results.2Accordingly, the usefulness of surveillance programmes in cirrhotics is still controversial, leading to the suggestion that they provide a minor benefit in terms of efficacy (years of life saved) and cost effectiveness. The only method to clarify this issue would be to design a randomised controlled trial comparing surveillance versus non-surveillance in a large series of cirrhotics who would be treated if diagnosed with HCC. Such an investigation would be ethically questionable and in addition, almost unfeasible. Ultrasound examination is commonly used for evaluation of cirrhotics, irrespective of the type of symptoms and this would “contaminate” the control arm.

In the absence of randomised controlled trials, how may we estimate the benefits of surveillance? Two approaches are proposed: to conduct follow up investigations or to perform decision-analytical studies using assumptions reported in clinical studies.7 Bolondi and colleagues8 conducted a follow up study, reported in this issue of Gut, recruiting a large series of cirrhotics and applying the most common surveillance policy: ultrasound and α fetoprotein determinations every six months (see page 251). On suspicion, they followed a predefined recall policy to determine the diagnosis and select the most suitable therapy aiming to offer all radical options to patients with early HCC. The outcome of patients under surveillance was compared with that of patients referred to hospital for HCC that was incidentally detected outside their programme. This comparison has allowed a rough estimation of the surveillance benefits but detection of patients with asymptomatic small solitary tumours outside surveillance suggests potential “contamination” of the control group by uncontrolled surveillance within the community physicians who thereafter refer patients with suspected HCC to the tertiary hospital for evaluation and treatment.

As surveillance is aimed at reducing disease specific mortality, comparison of long term survival between both cohorts is crucial. Unfortunately, the difference in survival was significant but not impressive (45% v 32% at three years). This may reflect both a lead time phenomenon and a real impact of treatment on survival. Interestingly, the applicability of radical therapies was not significantly different between the two cohorts (69%v 54%), although liver transplantation was more frequently applied in the surveillance cohort. Nevertheless, multivariate analysis identified liver function and tumour stage as survival predictors. Tumour stage may be a surrogate of surveillance and thus surveillance may prompt earlier HCC detection not allowing a better therapeutic approach, and this would prevent a marked impact on survival. In addition to this clinical output, Bolondiet al showed that the cost per year of life saved was above US$100 000, a value largely exceeding the cut off accepted for surveillance by policy makers and health providers.9

Do these findings imply that the study is not relevant? The answer is no. Evaluation of surveillance for HCC requires several clinical studies with different designs in different settings. Bolondi and colleagues8 describe the outcome of a hospital based programme including all types of cirrhotics and it may be that the clinical impact would be higher in a community based programme. In the latter, the risk of HCC might be lower because of better liver function (the study confirms age, advanced liver disease, and increased α fetoprotein concentrations as the main HCC predictors within cirrhosis) but the applicability of liver resection or transplantation may be increased. Thus a relevant increase in survival could be attained. On the other hand, the cost of each detected HCC in low risk individuals may also rise, and perhaps the unacceptable cost effectiveness ratio would not be modified. Another approach is more intense surveillance (that is, every three months) or the use of different tools. The results of these awaited studies will provide the assumptions to be used for estimation of the benefits and cost effectiveness of surveillance in different scenarios by using statistical techniques such as the Markov model.

Until these data become available, the debate will persist and surveillance will be initiated in cirrhotics, even without evidenced based data. However, this approach does have positive benefits. The diagnosis of patients at a non-advanced stages prompts further refinement of treatments with progressive improvement in long term outcomes. In addition, in the era of genetic profiling, careful recruitment of both clinical and biological data within surveillance will surely introduce molecular concepts into clinical practice. Ultimately, this research will change our understanding of the disease and help us to identify new targets for both prevention and treatment.

See article on page 251

References

View Abstract

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles