Blog
About

9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

          No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00105443.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: An update

            Since the publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2005, new information has emerged that requires that the guidelines be updated. The full version of the new guidelines is available on the AASLD Web site at http://www.aasld.org/practiceguidelines/Documents/Bookmarked%20Practice%20Guidelines/HCCUpdate2010.pdf. Here, we briefly describe only new or changed recommendations. Surveillance and Diagnosis In the previous guideline, groups were specified for which surveillance was likely to be cost-effective because the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence was high enough. New data on defining HCC risk have emerged for hepatitis B virus,1,2 hepatitis C virus,3 and autoimmune hepatitis.4 Surveillance is deemed cost-effective if the expected HCC risk exceeds 1.5% per year in patients with hepatitis C and 0.2% per year in patients with hepatitis B. Analysis of recent studies show that alpha-fetoprotein determination lacks adequate sensitivity and specificity for effective surveillance (and for diagnosis).5,6 Thus, surveillance has to be based on ultrasound examination. The recommended screening interval is 6 months. Diagnosis of HCC should be based on imaging techniques and/or biopsy.The 2005 diagnostic algorithm has been validated and the diagnostic accuracy of a single dynamic technique showing intense arterial uptake followed by “washout” of contrast in the venous-delayed phases has been demonstrated.7-9 Contrast-enhanced US may offer false positive HCC diagnosis in patients with cholangiocarcinoma and thus, has been dropped from the diagnostic techniques. The diagnostic algorithm is shown in Fig. 1. The application of dynamic imaging criteria should be applied only to patients with cirrhosis of any etiology and to patients with chronic hepatitis B who may not have fully developed cirrhosis or have regressed cirrhosis. Interpretation of biopsies and distinction between high-grade dysplatic nodules and HCC is challenging. Expert pathology diagnosis is reinforced by staining for glypican 3, heat shock protein 70, and glutamine synthetase, because positivity for two of these three stains confirms HCC.10 Fig. 1 Diagnostic algorithm for suspected HCC. CT, computed tomography; MDCT, multidetector CT; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; US, ultrasound. Staging and Treatment of HCC The BCLC staging system (Fig. 2)11 has come to be widely accepted in clinical practice and is also being used for many clinical trials of new drugs to treat HCC. Therefore, it has become the de facto staging system that is used. Fig. 2 The BCLC staging system for HCC. M, metastasis classification; N, node classification; PS, performance status; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization. The recommendations for liver transplantation have not changed. No new data have emerged that can be used to define a new limit for expanding the patient selection criteria. The usefulness of portal pressure measurement to predict the outcome of patients and define optimal candidates for resection has been validated in Japan.12 Thus, resection should remain the first option for patients who have the optimal profile, as defined by the BCLC staging system. Although resection can be performed in some of these patients with advanced liver disease, the mortality is higher and they might be better served by liver transplantation or ablation. A cohort study of radiofrequency ablation demonstrated that complete ablation of lesions smaller than 2 cm is possible in more than 90% of cases, with a local recurrence rate of less than 1%.13 These data should be confirmed by other groups before positioning ablation as the first-line approach for very early HCC. The recommendations regarding patient selection and method of administration of chemoembolization are unchanged. Radioembolization, i.e., the intra-arterial injection of yttrium-90 bound to glass beads or to resin, has been shown to induce tumor necrosis, but there are no data comparing its efficacy to transarterial chemoembolization or to sorafenib treatment for those with portal vein invasion. However, for patients who have either failed transarterial chemoembolization or who present with more advanced HCC, new data indicates the efficacy of sorafenib (a multikinase inhibitor with activity against Raf-1, B-Raf, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, c-Kit receptors, among other kinases) in prolonging life.14,15 Sorafenib induces a clinically relevant improvement in time to progression and in survival The magnitude of the improvement in survival compares with other established molecular targeted therapies for other advanced cancers, and the associated toxicity is easily managed without treatment-related mortality. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (sorafenib versus placebo: 11% versus 2%) and hand–foot skin reaction (sorafenib versus placebo: 8% versus <1%), fatigue, and weight loss. Sorafenib is now considered first-line treatment in patients with HCC who can no longer be treated with potentially more effective therapies. In summary, in the past decade HCC has gone from being an almost universal death sentence to a cancer that can be prevented, detected at an early stage, and effectively treated. Physicians caring for patients at risk need to provide high-quality screening, proper management of screen-detected lesions, and provision of therapy that is most appropriate for the stage of disease.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

              Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Affiliations
                [1 ] Division of Transplant Surgery, William J. von Liebig Transplant Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                [2 ] Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
                [3 ] Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
                [4 ] Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego.
                [5 ] Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
                [6 ] Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                [7 ] Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
                [8 ] Mayo Clinic Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                [9 ] Digestive and Liver Diseases Division, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
                Journal
                Hepatology
                Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)
                Wiley-Blackwell
                1527-3350
                0270-9139
                Jan 2018
                : 67
                : 1
                28130846 10.1002/hep.29086

                Comments

                Comment on this article