Assessing risk scores for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma in Thai patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection-associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major health problem in Asian countries. Several HCC risk prediction models have been developed using either treated or untreated CHB patients. However, there is limited validation of these risk scores in a treated and untreated mixed CHB patient cohort. This study analysed and validated HCC risk scores among 2208 CHB patients who enrolled in the HCC surveillance programme in Thailand during July 2010. The baseline clinical and radiologic data of these CHB patients were applied to calculate various HCC risk scores. There were 20 patients (0.9%) with HCC development at the 5.9-year follow-up. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) predicting HCC risk at 5 years were 0.80 (0.68-0.91), 0.73 (0.60-0.85), 0.79 (0.67-0.91), 0.70 (0.58-0.82), 0.72 (0.59-0.85), 0.76 (0.63-0.87) and 0.77 (0.64-0.89) for the GAG-HCC, CU-HCC, REACH-B, PAGE-B, mPAGE-B, CAMD and AASL scores, respectively. The overall HCC risk scores were accurate and comparable. However, the subgroup analysis revealed better HCC-risk-predictive performance in the treated patients, while performance was less helpful in those not fulfilling criteria for antiviral therapy. Clinicians should be aware of these data when using the HCC risk score in untreated CHB patients.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir versus tenofovir treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are considered among the most potent antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. We aimed to compare treatment efficacy and safety of ETV and TDF in nucleoside-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were compensated chronic hepatitis B patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative. Exclusion criteria were co-infection with hepatitis C virus and/or HIV, concurrent malignancy, and decompensated cirrhosis. Virological, biochemical, and serological end-points at week 96 and 144 were compared. Of 400 patients, 200 patients received ETV and 200 received TDF. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics including age (41.6 ± 11.5 vs. 41.2 ± 11.6, mean baseline hepatitis B virus DNA (5.91 ± 1.79 vs. 5.94 ± 1.68 log10 IU/mL), mean baseline alanine aminotransferase (68.1 ± 64.1 vs. 76.8 ± 79.8 U/L), and cirrhosis (15.5% vs. 14.5%). At week 144 of treatment, 91 and 94% of the ETV and TDF groups, respectively, achieved undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA. In HBeAg-positive patients, HBeAg seroconversion could be achieved in 27.4% and 33.7% at week 144 for ETV and TDF groups, respectively. Quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen dropped significantly over 144 weeks of treatment period but only 1.0 to 1.5% experienced hepatitis B surface antigen loss. Safety profiles were consistent with previous reports of monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Both ETV and TDF showed potent antiviral activity against hepatitis B. Either ETV or TDF can be recommended as a treatment of choice for patients with chronic hepatitis B. Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.

Hepatocellular carcinoma screening and surveillance in 2293 chronic hepatitis B patients in an endemic area.

AIM: To determine the role of screening and surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. METHODS: We recruited 2293 CHB patients (both males and females; aged 20-65 years). All patients were screened and underwent surveillance using abdominal ultrasonography (AUS) and serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) assay every 6 mo. The diagnosis, staging and treatment of HCC followed the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases practice guidelines and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer guidelines. The exclusion criteria included: decompensated cirrhosis; a history of any cancer in the last 5 years; previous antiviral treatment for CHB; concurrent infection with hepatitis C virus or human immunodeficiency virus; a Karnofsky Performance Status score < 60%; or any medical condition preventing eligibility to complete the protocol. The prevalence and incidence rates of HCC were determined; survival rates were calculated at 3-year post HCC diagnosis. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated on a per-patient basis. RESULTS: Among 2293 treatment-naïve CHB patients, seven cases had HCC at initial screening, giving a prevalence rate of 305 per 100000 persons; 3.3% were diagnosed with liver cirrhosis, all of which were Child-Pugh class A. With a median follow-up time of 42 (range, 3-48) mo, 10 additional cases were diagnosed with HCC, resulting in an incidence rate of 143 per 100000 persons per year. This burden was as high as that reported in other studies from East Asian countries. All HCC patients were aged ≥ 40 years. Most were at an early stage (Stage 0, A or B); 14/17 cases were successfully treated with surgical resection or radiofrequency ablation, with a high 3-year survival rate of 90%. Hemangioma was the most common focal liver lesion in CHB patients detected by AUS; the main causes of AFP elevation at the initial screening were cirrhosis, increased alanine aminotransferase level and HCC. AUS detected 16/17 HCC cases whereas AFP levels ≥ 20 µg/L at diagnosis were observed in only 7/17 patients, most with a tumor size > 5 cm. For HCC screening and surveillance, AUS had a sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 82%, respectively, whereas the sensitivity and specificity of AFP at a cut-off value of ≥ 20 µg/L were 41% and 98%, respectively. Combined use of AUS and AFP assay did not improve effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Implementation of active screening and surveillance using AUS to detect early-stage HCC in naïve CHB patients aged ≥ 40 years in an endemic area is of benefit.