ISSN: 1307-5888 | Contact
Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Cirrhotic Patients: Current Knowledge and Future Directions
1Marmara University, School of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Istanbul, Turkey
Hepatology Forum - DOI: 10.14744/hf.2020.2020.0003
Full Text PDF

Abstract

Patients with cirrhosis are at the highest risk for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a variable annual risk of 1%–8%. Currently, biannual abdominal ultrasound (USG) with or without alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is the recommended HCC surveillance strategy for all cirrhotic patients, by major professional liver societies. However, the effectiveness of USG and AFP has been a sprawling subject of debate, due to the conflicting results and the low quality of the evidence. The role of cross-sectional imaging is controversial due to potential harms and cost-effectivity concerns. Several novel serum biomarkers are introduced to HCC screening, but yet to be validated from various geographic regions. A risk-stratified algorithm is required to increase the yield of HCC surveillance, by distinguishing high-risk group who requires more intense screening with the usage of cross-sectional imaging and serum biomarkers, and low-risk group where standard surveillance strategy is redundant. In this review, the strengths and concerns of standard USG based surveillance strategy are discussed together with the efforts to increase the effectiveness of surveillance.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer, and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally (1). Most commonly established etiologies for development of HCC are chronic hepatitis B virus infection, hepatitis C virus infection, heavy alcohol drinking and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.  In 90% of cases, these risk factors lead to cirrhosis before HCC development, but there is a small proportion (10%) of HCCs which occurs in a non-cirrhotic liver (2). Patients with cirrhosis are at the highest risk for developing HCC, with a variable annual risk of 1%–8% (3). Several observational cohort studies in patients with cirrhosis and two-large randomized controlled trials in patients with HBV have demonstrated that patients who undergo HCC surveillance have earlier-stage HCC, are more likely to receive potentially curative treatment, and have improved survival than those who presented symptomatically or diagnosed incidentally (4-6). Based on these data, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), American Association for the Study of the Liver (AASLD), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver recommend (APASL) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend surveillance to at risk individuals, including all cirrhotic patients regardless of etiology and selected subgroups of chronic HBV patients (7-10) (Table 1). 

Currently, biannual abdominal ultrasound (USG) with or without alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is the recommended HCC surveillance strategy for at-risk individuals, by major professional liver societies (Table 2). Likewise, biannual USG with AFP is recommended to at-risk individuals in Turkey Hepatitis B road map, which was proposed by Turkish Liver Studies Association of Turkey (TASL) in 2009 (11). However, the effectiveness of USG has been a sprawling subject of debate, due to the conflicting results and the low quality of the evidence. The main reasons for the enquiry on USG is owing to its patient-related factors such as obesity and nodular view liver in cirrhosis, and operator dependency which results in huge variations in the success of USG across institutions. The addition of AFP to surveillance seems to be withdrawn from recommendations and left to physician’s preference. In this review, we discuss the strengths and concerns of this standard of care surveillance strategy. We also discuss the efforts to increase the yield of surveillance and diminish cost-effectivity concerns. 


What do we gain from a standard biannual USG  AFP surveillance? 

The direct aim of any cancer surveillance program is clear; to detect cancers at at an early curable stage (BCLC 0 or A), which results in a favorable survival expectancy. Therefore, when a lesion is caught at a stage beyond eligibility to curative treatments (BCLC B or C or D), it is not considered to be a surveillance related benefit as it would not have any influence on survival. The sensitivity and specificity of USG for any stage HCC detection exceeds 90%. On the other hand, a recent meta-analysis displayed that USG alone detects early-stage HCC with only a 47% sensitivity rate and the addition of AFP increased the sensitivity rate to 63% (12). This can be explained by the higher omitting rates of small lesions due to limitations of USG in cirrhotic liver. A prior meta-analysis of 13 prospective cohort studies concluded that AFP has no additional value compared with USG alone (13). The demonstrated contribution of AFP in the literature may be due to higher advanced stage HCC detection rates under USG based surveillance.

The indirect, but actual goal of surveillance is to decrease cancer-related mortality in patients with cirrhosis. A recently published case-control study has demonstrated that neither USG, nor AFP decreases the HCC-related mortality (14). The suboptimal performance of USG in reaching direct and indirect goals of HCC surveillance highlights the need for alternative surveillance strategies. Nevertheless, the global acceptance of USG in surveillance relies on the absence of risks, non-invasiveness and lower costs, which is comprehensible. Model-based simulation studies have demonstrated that biannual USG for all cirrhotic patients is cost-effective compared to no surveillance, although average survival extension was less then 6 months (15). Despite the contradictions, there is still evidence suggesting the usage of AFP in combination with USG for patients with cirrhosis until superior surveillance strategies are available. The only subgroup of patients with cirrhosis who are not recommended to undergo standard surveillance program Child-Pugh Class C cirrhosis, unless they are awaiting liver transplantation, given the low probability of treatment eligibility when HCC occurs.


What are the potential harms?

HCC surveillance with USG  AFP can not constitute a direct physical harm; however there are potential downstream harms associated with diagnostic evaluation process. False negative results are common in USG-based surveillance. These suspicious liver lesions typically undergo subsequent computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and followed-up in shorter intervals, which bears radiation exposure, possible contrast injury, and financial burden (16-18). When the lesion can not be characterized with these cross-sectional imaging, patients may undergo biopsy, which is associated with risks of bleeding, tumor seeding and injury to nearby organs (19). Besides, this process and follow-up period may bring an unmeasurable psychosocial burden to the patient. A recent report has exposed that 75% of patients under surveillance are concerned that they will die from the disease, not specifically questioning the effect of routine intervals of surveillance, but it’s impact on quality of life is apparent (20). These potential harms have been weighted in a cohort of cirrhosis, and 27.5% of patients were exposed to surveillance-related physical harms. Of which 22.8% were USG related, and 11.4% were AFP related (21). In our Turkish cirrhotic cohort, we demonstrated that annual MRI-based surveillance strategy carries a lower (6.5%) physical harm rate, not investigating the financial and psychosocial burden. 


Is there any place for cross-sectional imaging? 

The role of cross-sectional imaging is controversial. Several studies and meta-analyses have investigated the performance of MRI and CT (22, 23). Generally, there is a trend towards higher success in MRI compared to CT. In a randomized trial, annual CT exhibited a 62.5% sensitivity rate in the surveillance of patients with cirrhosis to detect an early-stage HCC, which did not significantly differ from biannual USG (24). In addition to the lack of demonstrated benefits, CT-based surveillance is restricted due to its physical risks including radiation exposure and contrast-induced nephrotoxicity (16, 17). Another study conducted to compare biannual liver-specific contrast enhanced MRI and USG showed that biannual MRI had a sensitivity of 83.7% in detecting early-stage HCC, whereas it was only 25.6% in the biannual USG arm (25). Although biannual MRI exhibits satisfactory results in the literature, the main barriers for MRI to enter the surveillance programs have been concerns with regard to cost-effectivity, contraindications, long scan times, and limited availability (18). Abbreviated-protocol screening MRI, which was proposed as a shorter version of conventional MRI screening, showed comparable results to complete-protocol diagnostic MRI and made MRI a more assertive and cost-effective tool as a candidate for HCC surveillance (26,27). Besides, cost-effectivity of biannual MRI in the HCC surveillance of patients with cirrhosis was proven using the cohort-based Markov model recently (28). Furthermore, to standardize the reporting and increase the diagnostic specificity of HCCs in CT or MRI, The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was developed. The latest 2018 version of LI-RADS, which was first supported and endorsed by the American College of Radiology in 2011 and now is integrated into the latest HCC guidelines of AASLD in 2018, helps the radiologists to standardize reporting of liver lesions and clinicians to optimize the management of liver lesions detected in surveillance (8, 29). In a recent study of our group, we evaluated the efficacy of an annual contrast-enhanced MRI as a HCC-surveillance tool. In our cirrhotic cohort of 294 patients with consistent annual surveillance with MRI; we demonstrated the satisfactory performance of MRI in the surveillance of HCC, in terms of detecting most of the lesions in earlier curable stages (85.8%) and indicating high sensitivity and specificity (sensitivity; 83.3% and 80% and specificity; 95.4% and 91.4 for detecting early and very early-stage HCC, respectively) with no additional benefit of biannual AFP (30). 

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has been proposed as another advantageous radiologic tool for surveillance in the last decade. The examination is performed by injecting intravenous microbubble contrast agents without renal excretion with the advantage of real-time dynamic imaging. The CEUS technique is generally considered safe and well tolerated, may be even used in renal failure patients. It’s use in clinical practice is suggested by the latest version of EASL guidelines on the management of HCC, as a part of work-up of focal liver lesions and as a diagnostic tool for HCC, where available (7). CEUS demonstrated a superior performance than conventional USG in detecting early HCCs in a head to head prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial, and has a sensitivity rate of 85% and specificity of 91% for HCCs detected in cirrhotic liver (31, 32). CEUS appears as a more sensible tool than non-contrast USG for HCC screening, where available. However, it still has several limitations such as lack of specificity on differentiation between HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, which occurs in %2 to %5 of all new nodules in cirrhosis (33, 34). For this reason, a dedicated Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (CEUS LI-RADS) was developed in 2016, which uses the the size, type, presence of washout, degree of arterial phase enhancement, and the timing and degree of washout to categorize focal liver lesions in patients at high risk for HCC (35). The CEUS LI-RADS algorithm has been reported to be highly specific for the diagnosis of HCC, and may help CEUS take the lead in the race among radiologic tools for HCC surveillance (36). 

Considering all limitations with standard non-contrast USG, a better improved radiologic surveillance tool is required. To overcome the financial burden and increase the yield, inclusion of advanced imaging tools to surveillance can be narrowed for only selected patients with higher risk of HCC development. 


Any promising serologic biomarker to be used in HCC surveillance?

Novel biomarkers are introduced in the screening of many cancer types for early detection and prognosis determination, such as biochemical metabolites, proteins and RNA. AFP has been widely accepted and used in combination with USG for HCC surveillance. However, AFP is not able to detect early HCCs in %80 of cases, which made its usage in surveillance controversial. Another criticism for current biomarkers, especially for AFP, appear to be drawn from its inconsistent performance characteristics across various etiologies of chronic liver disease and different regions. Thus, there has been interest in developing novel biomarkers with more success in early detection and utilizable in different regions. Future of biomarker screening is promising, with numerous other molecules under research such as osteopontin, alfa fetoprotein-L3 (AFP-L3), des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), glypican-3 (GCP3) and alpha-1-fucosidase. 

Since the conventional liver tissue biopsy is an invasive procedure and representive of only biopsied small portion of the tumor, it is unable to represent tumor heterogeneity. Over the past years, a new diagnostic method namely liquid biopsy has emerged as a promising tool for both detecting early HCCs, determining the prognosis and molecular profiling. Liquid biopsy has the advantage of being quick, easy obtainable, minimally invasive and representative of comprehensive tissue profile (66). The liquid biopsy techniques are mainly based on detecting circulating tumor cells, micro RNAs, tumor cell-free DNAs, tumor derived/associated extracellular vesicles, and metabolites and proteins (67). There are a large number of liquid biopsy biomarkers studied in the early detection of HCCs which suggested that those could be promising biomarkers and attractive option for AFP negative early HCCs, however those candidate biomarkers must be internationally validated using methodologies easily transferable into the clinical settings. 


Is one-size-fits all strategy convenient for surveillance of HCC in cirrhotic patients? 

The risk of HCC is not uniform, and may increase due to underlying parameters. However, despite our increasing awareness of prognostic and etiological risk factors, most patients present with advanced stages at the time of diagnosis, and less than 20% are eligible for curative treatment options (39). The most critical game-changer intervention for the HCC course remains improving the detection rates at an early stage. To achieve this goal, the most accurate approach may be to optimize screening strategies and better reveal the higher risk patients who requires more intense surveillance with better imaging modalities and/or serum biomarkers. This opinion is supported by a recent report, where the cost-effectivity of risk stratified HCC surveillance, which outperformed the currently recommended non-stratified biannual USG in all patients, has been proven using a Markov decision-analytic modeling (40). We illustrate our opinion of a risk-stratified algorithm in the surveillance of HCC among cirrhotic patients in figure 1, of which the players are yet to be determined.

A number of scoring systems were developed to predict the risk of HCC, mainly focusing on chronic hepatitis B virus (41-48) and hepatitis C virus (49-53), and only a few targeted all cirrhotic patients regardless of etiology (54-56) (Table 3). Among them the Risk Estimation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B (REACH-B) and the Platelets, Age, Gender in chronic hepatitis B (PAGE-B), Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment against Cirrhosis (HALT-C) are the most popular and externally validated ones. In 2014, ADRESS-HCC risk model was developed which aimed to predict 1-year HCC risk. ADRESS-HCC only categorized etiologies into three groups (autoimmune, alcohol/metabolic, viral), which was unsatisfactory to weigh the different etiologies and treatment response status. In 2017, Toronto Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk Index (THRI) was developed to predict 10 year HCC risk, using simple clinical and laboratory parameters (age, gender, etiology, platelet) (56). Moreover, THRI weighed etiologies in more detail, including the sustained virological response status of HCV-related cirrhosis. Performance of THRI has been illustrated in three different cohorts from different regions (Canada, Netherlands and China) (56, 57). These three cohorts showed similar efficacy of THRI to predict HCC development. We recently validated the efficacy of THRI in our Turkish cirrhotic cohort and found a similar area under the ROC curve (AUROC) value to the Canadian, Dutch and Chinese cohorts, very interestingly with the same optimal cut-off value of 240 to distinguish high risk HCC group (58). These emerging evidence encourages the usage of THRI and/or other validated scoring systems using the combination of clinical and laboratory variables in the risk-stratified surveillance algorithm.

Combination of available clinical and laboratory variables has been evaluated to develop HCC risk-predictive scores in recent years, although their performance is somewhat limited and yet to be adopted in clinical practice. To further adjust HCC prediction, the combination of three biomarkers (AFP, AFP-L3 and DCP) with sex and age has been proposed as a diagnostic model (GALAD) (59), which later on combined with USG (presence of solid lesion on surveillance) and showed better results (GALADUS) (60). GALAD score showed remarkable performance in surveillance with AUROC values of 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93–97], sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 85%. Besides the performance of GALAD for early HCC detection remained high as well (AUROC: 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88–0.96], sensitivity 92%, specificity 79%). Another risk score, namely Doylestown algorithm, incorporates biomarkers (AFP and fucosylated biomarkers) and relevant clinical variables (age, gender and ALT) with ALP (61). To supplement these inadequate clinical scores, new molecular biomarkers have been investigated. Several germ line single-nucleotide polymorphisms in epidermal growth factor and myeloperoxidase has been identified and validated as an HCC risk predictor, and a liver-derived 186-gene signature has been proposed as a prognostic parameter (62-67). Although they were considered as candidates for patients with cirrhosis in most need of surveillance, all are far away from being in widespread use due to heterogeneity in etiologic and differential characteristics of HCC globally. Validation studies from different geographic regions are required before further affirmative comments for these combined clinical and serologic prediction models. 


Conclusion

Our knowledge on cost-effectivity of performing HCC-surveillance is based on model-based studies, because following the patients without performing surveillance is not an option for trials, as surveillance has become standard of care globally. Despite the questionable quality of evidence, the literature suggests to perform surveillance. The standard of care with biannual USG  AFP is premature, and it is not rational to implement the same strategy to every cirrhotic patient. The key of increasing the yield and cost-effectivity lies on the risk-stratified surveillance strategy. There is a growing evidence and advance in the integration of cross-sectional imaging modalities and serum biomarkers to HCC surveillance. The evolving HCC-risk stratification models may be helpful for us to tailor surveillance strategy and integrate costly tools to be used in selected patients. Further studies are needed to better stratify the risk for HCC and to determine improved surveillance strategies, including imaging and biomarkers.



References

1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86. Doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210.

2. Yang JD, Kim WR, Coelho R, et al. Cirrhosis is present in most patient with hepatitis B and hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:64-70.

3. El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2011; 365(12):1118-1127.

4. Kanwal F, Singal AG. Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Best Practice and Future Direction. Gastroenterology 2019;157:54-64. 

5. Zhang BH, Yang BH, Tang ZY. Randomized controlled screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:417-422.

6. Yang B, Zhang B, Xu Y, et al. Prospective study of early detection for primary liver cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1997;123:357-360.

7. Galle PR, Forner A, Llovet JM, Mazzaferro V, Piscaglia F, Raoul JL, et al. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018;69:182-236.

8. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, et al. Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018;68:723-750.

9. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, Kudo M, Lee JM, Jia J, et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int 2017;11:317-370.

10. National Cancer Institute (NIH). Liver (hepatocellular) cancer screening (PDQ [R])—health professional version. NIH web site, <https:// www.cancer.gov/types/liver/hp/liver-screening-pdq>. Accessed 9 Jan 2018.

11. https://www.vhsd.org/tr/files/download/p1be3700991q4hlip1fjbrgqj64.pdf

12. Tzartzeva K, Obi J, Rich NE, Parikh ND, Marrero JA, Yopp A, et al. Surveillance Imaging and Alpha Fetoprotein for Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2018;154: 1706-1718.

13. Singal A, Volk ML, Waljee A, et al. Meta-analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009;30:37-47.

14. Moon AM, Weiss NS, Beste LA, Su F, Ho SB, Jin GY, et al. No Association Between Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Reduced Cancer-Related Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:1128-1139.

15. Andersson KL, Salomon JA, Goldie SJ, Chung RT. Cost effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(12):1418-1424. 

16. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology. 2004;231:393–398.

17. Barrett BJ, Carlisle EJ. Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high- and low-osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology. 1993;188:171–178. 

18. Dill T. Contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging: noninvasive imaging. Heart. 2008;94:943–948.

19. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD. Liver Biopsy. Hepatology. 2009;49:1017-1044.

20. Farvardin S, Patel J, Kahambaty M, et al. Patient-reported barriers are associated with lower hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance rates in patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2017;65:875-884.

21. Atiq O, Tiro J, Yopp AC, Muffler A, Marrero JA, Parikh ND, et al. An assessment of benefits and harms of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology.. 2017;65:1196–1205.

22. Hanna RF, Miloushev VZ, Tang A, Finklestone LA, Brejt SZ, Sandhu RS, et al. Comparative 13-year meta-analysis of the sensitivity and positive predictive value of ultrasound, CTi and MRı for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol. 2016;41:71-90. 

23. Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee HY, Park BH, Kim YH, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2015;275:97-109. 

24. Pocha C, Dieperink E, McMaken KA, Knott A, Thuras P, Ho SB. Surveillance for hepatocellular cancer with ultrasonography vs. computed tomography -- a randomised study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:303-312.

25. Kim SY, An J, Lim YS, Han S, Lee JY, Byun JH, et al. MRI With Liver-Specific Contrast for Surveillance of Patients With Cirrhosis at High Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3:456-463. 

26. Khatri G, Pedrosa I, Ananthakrishnan L, et al. Abbreviated-protocol screening MRI vs. complete-protocol diagnostic MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: An equivalence study using LI-RADS v2018. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;51(2):415-425.

27. Lee JY, Huo EJ, Weinstein S, et al. Evaluation of an abbreviated screening MRI protocol for patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(7):1627-1633.

28. Kim HL, An J, Park JA, Park SH, Lim YS, Lee EK. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Cost-Effective for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in High Risk Patients with Cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2019;69(4):1599-1613. 

29. American College of Radiology Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 core. [Accessed May 21, 2018]. Available from: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS.

30. Demirtas CO, Gunduz F, Tuney D, Baltacioglu F, Kani HT, Bugdayci O, Alahdab YO, Ozdogan OC. Annual contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is highly effective in the surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma among cirrhotic patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;32(4):517-523.

31. Kudo M, Ueshima K, Osaki Y, et al.B-Mode Ultrasonography versus Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography for Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Liver Cancer. 2019;8(4):271-280. 

32. Zhang J, Yu Y, Li Y, et al. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis with evidence from 1998 to 2016. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 75418–75426.

33. Vilana R, Forner A, Bianchi L, et al. Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis patients may display a vascular pattern similar to hepatocellular carcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Hepatology. 2010;51:2020–2029.

34. Wilson SR, Jang HJ, Kim TK, Iijima H, Kamiyama N, Burns PN. Real time temporal maximum-intensity-projection imaging of hepatic lesions with contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:691–695.

35. 31.  Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2017. CEUS Li-RADS v2017 Core [Internet] [cited 2018 Oct 18]. Available from: https:// www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Images/Clinical-Resources/RADS/LIRADS/CEUSv2017Core.png.

36. Aube C, Oberti F, Lonjon J, et al. EASL and AASLD recommendations for the diagnosis of HCC to the test of daily practice. Liver Int. 2017;37:1515-1525. 

37. Ye Q, Ling S, Zheng S, Xu X. Liquid biopsy in hepatocellular carcinoma: circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Mol Cancer. 2019;18(1):114.

38. Macias RIR, Kornek M, Rodrigues PM, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in cholangiocarcinoma. Liver Int. 2019;39(1):108-122.

39. Bruix J, Sherman M; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011; 53:1020–1022.

40. Goossens N, Singal AG, King LY, Andersson KL, Fuchs BC, Besa C, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Risk Score-Stratified Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening in Patients with Cirrhosis. Clin Transl Gastroenterology. 2017;8(6):e101. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2017.26.

41. Yuen MF, Tanaka Y, Fong DY, Fung J, Wong DK, Yuen JC, et al. Independent risk factors and predictive score for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2009;50:80-88.

42. Wong VW, Chan SL, Mo F, Chan TC, Loong HH, Wong GL, et al. Clinical scoring system to predict hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1660-1665.

43. Papatheodoridis G, Dalekos G, Sypsa V, et al. PAGE-B predicts the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma in Caucasians with chronic hepatitis B on 5-year antiviral therapy. J Hepatol. 2016;64(4):800-806. 

44. Kim JH, Kim YD, Lee M, et al. Modified PAGE-B score predicts the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in Asians with chronic hepatitis B on antiviral therapy. J Hepatol. 2018;69(5):1066-1073. 

45. Wong GL, Chan HL, Wong CK, et al. Liver stiffness-based optimization of hepatocellular carcinoma risk score in patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2014;60(2):339-345.

46. Yang HI, Yuen MF, Chan HL, Han KH, Chen PJ, Kim DY, et al. Risk estimation for hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B (REACH-B): development and validation of a predictive score. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:568-574.

47. Lee MH, Yang HI, Liu J, et al. Prediction models of long-term cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B patients: risk scores integrating host and virus profiles. Hepatology. 2013;58(2):546-554.

48. Lee HW, Yoo EJ, Kim BK, et al. Prediction of development of liver-related events by transient elastography in hepatitis B patients with complete virological response on antiviral therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(8):1241-1249. 

49. Lok AS, Seeff LB, Morgan TR, di Bisceglie AM, Sterling RK, Curto TM, et al. Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and associated risk factors in hepatitis C-related advanced liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2009; 136:138-148.

50. El-Serag HB, Kanwal F, Davila JA, Kramer J, Richardson P. A new laboratory-based algorithm to predict development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C and cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:1249-1255.

51. Chang KC, Hung CH, Lu SN, et al. A novel predictive score for hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis C after sustained response to pegylated interferon and ribavirin combination therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(11):2766-2772. 

52. Masuzaki R, Tateishi R, Yoshida H, et al. Prospective risk assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis C by transient elastography. Hepatology. 2009; 49(6):1954–1961.

53. Ganne-Carrié N, Layese R, Bourcier V, et al. Nomogram for individualized prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma occurrence in hepatitis C virus cirrhosis (ANRS CO12 CirVir). Hepatology. 2016:64(4):1136-1147. 

54. Flemming JA, Yang JD, Vittinghoff E, Kim WR, Terrault NA. Risk prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: the ADRESS-HCC risk model. Cancer. 2014;120:3485-3493.

55. Liang KH, Ahn SH, Lee HW, Huang YH, Chien RN, Hu TH, et al. A novel risk score for hepatocellular carcinoma in Asian cirrhotic patients: a multicentre prospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2018;8:8608.

56. Sharma SA, Kowgier M, Hansen BE, Brouwer WP, Maan R, Wong D, et al. Toronto HCC risk index: A validated scoring system to predict 10-year risk of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2018;68:92-99.

57. Zhang H, Zhu J, Xi L, Xu C, Wu A. Validation of the Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index for patients with cirrhosis in China: a retrospective cohort study. World J Surg Oncol. 2019; 17:75.

58. Demirtas CO, Gunduz F, Kani HT, et al. External Validation of Toronto Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk Index in a Turkish Cirrhotic Cohort. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. Accepted article.

59. Johnson PJ, Pirrie SJ, Cox TF, et al. The detection of hepatocellular carcinoma using a prospectively developed and validated model based on serological biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(1):144-153.  

60. Yang JD, Addissie BD, Mara KC, et al. GALAD score for hepatocellular carcinoma detection in comparison to liver ultrasound and proposal of GALADUS score. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019;28(3):531-538. 

61. Wang M, Devarajan K, Singal AG, et al. The Doylestown algorithm: a test to improve the performance of AFP in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2016;9(2):172-179. 

62. Goossens N, Sun X, Hoshida Y. Molecular classification of hepatocellular carcinoma: potential theurapeutic implications. Hepat Oncol. 2015;2(4):371-379. 

63. Goossens N, Bian CB, Hoshida Y. Tailored algorithms for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: is one-size fits-all strategy outdated? Curr Hepatol Rep. 2017;16(1):64-71. 

64. Tanabe KK, Lemoine A, Finkelstein DM, et al. Epidermal growth factor gene functional polymorphism in the epidermal growth factor gene is associated with risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2011;141(1):141-149.

65. Abu Dayyeh BK, Yang M, Fuchs BC, et al. A functional polymorphism in the epidermal growth factor gene is associated with risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2011;141(1):141-149. 

66. Hoshida Y, Villanueva A, Sangiovanni A, et al. Prognostic gene expression signature for patients with hepatitis C-related early-stage cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(5):1024-1030. 

67. King LY, Canasto-Chibuque C, Johnson KB, et al. A genomic and clinical prognostic index for hepatitis C-related early stage cirrhosis that predicts clinical deterioration. Gut. 2015; 64(8):1296-1302.