Abstract
IMPORTANCE
There are different clinical practices regarding ultrasonography screening intervals
for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) despite recommendations from international guidelines.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate whether ultrasonography screening using intervals suggested by
international guidelines is associated with cancer stage shifting, reductions in mortality, and
improved quality of life (QoL) for patients with HCC.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANT
This nationwide comparative effectiveness research study
estimated lifetime survival functions using interlinkages of 3 databases from Taiwan—the Taiwan
National Health Insurance, Taiwan National Cancer Registry, and National Mortality Registry—
combined with QoL measurements obtained from National Cheng Kung University Hospital. In total,
114 022 patients listed as having newly diagnosed HCC from 2002 through 2015 in the Taiwan
National Cancer Registry were followed up until 2017. The QoL values of 1059 patients with HCC who
visited National Cheng Kung University Hospital were prospectively measured with the European
QoL-5 dimensions questionnaire from 2011 through 2019. Patients were categorized based on the
time between their last ultrasonography screening and the index date (90 days prior to HCC
diagnosis) as 1 of 5 subcohorts: 6 months (0-6 months), 12 months (7-12 months), 24 months (13-24
months), 36 months (25-36 months), and longer than 36 months (no screening in the previous 3
years). Data were analyzed from April 2020 to April 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and loss of
life expectancy or loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with age-, sex-, and calendar
year–matched cohorts.
RESULTS
There were 59 194 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging information,
including 42 081 men (mean [SD] age, 62.2 [12.6] years) and 17 113 women (mean [SD] age, 69.0
[11.2] years). There was a consistent trend showing that the longer the interval between
ultrasonography examinations, the higher the loss of life expectancy and loss of quality-adjusted life
expectancy for both sexes. Loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy values for male subcohorts were
10.0 (95% CI, 9.1-10.9) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for ultrasonography screening intervals of
6 months, 11.1 (95% CI, 10.4-11.8) QALYs for 12 months, 12.1 (95% CI, 11.5-12.7) QALYs for 24 months,
13.1 (95% CI, 12.6-13.6) QALYs for 36 months, and 14.6 (95% CI, 14.2-15.0) QALYs for longer than 36
months. Loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy values for female subcohorts were 9.0 (95% CI,
8.3-9.6) QALYs for 6 months, 9.7 (95% CI, 9.2-10.2) QALYs for 12 months, 10.3 (95% CI, 9.8-10.7)
QALYs for 24 months, 10.7 (95% CI, 10.2-11.1) QALYs for 36 months, and 11.4 (95% CI, 11.0-11.8) QALYs
for longer than 36 months. Patients with underlying hepatitis B virus infection or cirrhosis had the
greatest improvement in life expectancy with shorter screening intervals.
Findings
This comparative
effectiveness research study evaluated
59 194 patients with HCC in Taiwan who
were followed up for 14 years, with loss
of quality-adjusted life expectancy
estimated by comparison with age-,
sex-, and calendar year–matched
referents simulated from vital statistics
data. Compared with abdominal
ultrasonography screening within 36
months before diagnosis, screening 6
months before diagnosis was associated
with an additional 4.6 QALYs for men
and 2.4 QALYs for women.
Meaning In this study, ultrasonography
screening using shorter intervals for
high-risk patients detected HCC earlier,
suggesting that such a screening
approach may save more lives and
improve quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Regular ultrasonography screening with intervals less than 6 to
12 months may be associated with early detection of HCC, save lives, and improve the quality of life
for patients with HCC from a lifetime perspective.
Key Points
Question What is the optimal interval
of ultrasonography screening for early
diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC) among high-risk patients?
JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(6):e2114680. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14680
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét