Hepatocellular carcinoma risk after viral response in hepatitis C virus-advanced fibrosis: Who to screen and for how long?

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) chronic infection is associated with fibrosis progression, end-stage liver complications and HCC. Not surprisingly, HCV infection is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. After sustained virological response (SVR), the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma is not completely eliminated in patients with established cirrhosis or with advanced fibrosis. Therefore, lifelong surveillance is currently recommended. This strategy is likely not universally cost-effective and harmless, considering that not all patients with advanced fibrosis have the same risk of developing HCC. Factors related to the severity of liver disease and its potential to improve after SVR, the molecular and epigenetic changes that occur during infection and other associated comorbidities might account for different risk levels and are likely essential for identifying patients who would benefit from screening programs after SVR. Efforts to develop predictive models and risk calculators, biomarkers and genetic panels and even deep learning models to estimate the individual risk of HCC have been made in the direct-acting antiviral agents era, when thousands of patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis have reached SVR. These tools could help to identify patients with very low HCC risk in whom surveillance might not be justified. In this review, factors affecting the probability of HCC development after SVR, the benefits and risks of surveillance, suggested strategies to estimate individualized HCC risk and the current evidence to recommend lifelong surveillance are discussed.

A Model Based on Noninvasive Markers Predicts Very Low Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk After Viral Response in Hepatitis C Virus-Advanced Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and advanced fibrosis remain at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after sustained viral response (SVR) and need lifelong surveillance. Because HCC risk is not homogenous and may decrease with fibrosis regression, we aimed to identify patients with low HCC risk based on the prediction of noninvasive markers and its changes after SVR. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This is a multicenter cohort study, including patients with HCV and compensated advanced fibrosis that achieved SVR after direct antivirals. Clinical and transient elastography (TE) data were registered at baseline, 1 year, and 3 years after the end of treatment (EOT). All patients underwent liver ultrasound scan every 6 months. Patients with clinical evaluation 1 year after EOT were eligible. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed, and predictive models were constructed. HCC occurrence rates were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier. Nine hundred and ninety-three patients were eligible (56% male; 44% female; median age 62 years), 35 developed HCC (3.9%), and the median follow-up was 45 months (range 13-53). Baseline liver stiffness measurement (LSM) (HR 1.040; 95% CI 1.017-1.064), serum albumin (HR 0.400; 95% CI 0.174-0.923), 1-year DeltaLSM (HR 0.993; 95% CI 0.987-0.998), and 1-year FIB-4 score (HR 1.095; 95% CI 1.046-1.146) were independent factors associated with HCC. The TE-based HCC risk model predicted 0% of HCC occurrence at 3 years in patients with score 0 (baseline LSM ≤ 17.3 kPa, albumin >4.2 g/dL, and 1-year DeltaLSM > 25.5%) versus 5.2% in patients with score 1-3 (Harrell's C 0.779; log-rank 0.002). An alternative model with FIB-4 similarly predicted HCC risk. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of baseline and dynamic changes in noninvasive markers may help to identify patients with a very low risk of HCC development after SVR.

Elevation of Liver Fibrosis Index FIB-4 Is Associated With Poor Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a potentially severe disease caused by the recently described SARS-CoV-2. Whether liver fibrosis might be a relevant player in the natural history of COVID-19 is currently unknown. We aimed to evaluate the association between FIB-4 and the risk of progression to critical illness in middle-aged patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective study with prospective follow-up of 160 patients aged 35-65 years with COVID-19, FIB-4, clinical, and biochemical variables were collected at baseline. FIB-4 ≥2.67 defined patients with risk for advanced liver fibrosis. RESULTS: Risk for advanced fibrosis was estimated in 28.1% of patients. Patients with FIB-4 ≥2.67 more frequently required mechanical ventilation (37.8% vs 18.3%; P = .009). In multivariate analysis, FIB-4 ≥2.67 (odds ratio [OR], 3.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-8.92), cardiovascular risk factors (OR, 5.05; 95% CI, 1.90-13.39), previous respiratory diseases (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.36-15.10), and C-reactive protein (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) increased significantly the risk of ICU admission. Bootstrap confirmed FIB-4 as an independent risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: In middle-aged patients with COVID-19, FIB-4 may have a prognostic role. The link between liver fibrosis and the natural history of COVID-19 should be evaluated in future studies.