ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: An optimal follow-up schedule for small (≤3-cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) remains unclear in clinical guidelines. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies in patients with small HCC after RFA. METHODS: In total, 11,243 patients were collected from global institutions to calculate recurrence rates. Subsequently, a Markov model covering a 10-year period was developed to compare 25 surveillance strategies involving different surveillance techniques (computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography [US], and α-fetoprotein [AFP]) and intervals (3 or 6 months). The study endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represented additional cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the values of input parameters to observe the ICER. RESULTS: In a base case analysis, the dominant strategy was CT every 3 months during an initial 2 years, followed by semiannual CT, and then switch to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years (m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP), with an ICER of $68,570.92 compared with the "not followed" strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER consistently remained below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.00. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP was the most cost-effective approach in 95.6% of simulated scenarios at a willingness-to-pay threshold. DISCUSSION: For small HCC after RFA, the recommended follow-up strategy is CT, with scans scheduled every 3 months for the first 2 years, every 6 months thereafter, and transition to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety profile of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (HAIC-FOLFOX) as an alternative therapeutic choice for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that is refractory to systemic treatment including immune checkpoint blockades or molecular targeting agents. METHODS: Two hundred and forty five consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC-FOLFOX treatment after systemic treatment failure were retrospectively reviewed in six institutions and their survival, tumor response, and tolerance were assessed. RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival of the 209 included participants were 10.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-12.9) and 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.9), respectively. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria, the objective response rate was 21.1%, and the disease control rate was 64.6%. Multivariate analysis of risk factors of OS were albumin-bilirubin grade (2 and 3 vs. 1, hazard ratio [HR] 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.34; p = 0.028), tumor number (>3 vs. 1-3, HR 2.18; 95% CI, 1.10-4.34; p = 0.026), extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent, HR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.06-2.45; p = 0.027), synchronous systemic treatment (present vs. absent, HR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.37-0.83; p = 0.004) and treatment response (responder vs. nonresponder, HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; p < 0.001). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59 (28.2%) HCC patients. All AEs were manageable, and deaths related to hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy treatment were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the effectiveness and safety of HAIC-FOLFOX treatment for patients with advanced HCC who have failed systemic treatment.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The phase III FOHAIC-1 trial revealed that hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC) improved overall survival compared to sorafenib in the high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study therefore set out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and establish a prognostic clinico-radiological score of HAIC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 409 patients with high-risk HCC who received HAIC between 2014 and 2020 were included. A Markov model was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the FOHAIC-1 trial. In prognosis analysis, a clinico-radiological score was developed using a Cox-regression model and subsequently confirmed in the internal validation and test cohorts. The area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to assess the performance of the clinico-radiological score. RESULTS: HAIC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10190.41/quality-adjusted life years compared to sorafenib, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a ≥99.9% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay. The Cox analysis identified five factors, namely extrahepatic metastasis (m), arterial enhancing type (a), tumor number (nu), albumin-bilirubin index (a), and involved lobe (l), which together comprise the clinico-radiological score (HAIC-manual). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of factors present, with cutoffs at 2 and 4 factors. The stratified median overall survival for these groups were 21.6, 10.0, and 5.9 months, respectively ( P <0.001). These findings were verified through internal validation and test cohorts with a significance level of P ≤0.01. The time-dependent area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic for the ability of the HAIC-manual to predict survival in 1, 2, and 3 years were 0.71, 0.76, and 0.78, which significantly outperformed existing staging systems. CONCLUSION: HAIC is a promising and cost-effective strategy for patients with high-risk HCC. The clinico-radiological score may be a simple prognostic tool for predicting HAIC treatment.
