Kaplan, David E.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.

The burden of cirrhosis hospitalizations is increasing. The admission Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease–lactate (MELD‐lactate) was recently demonstrated to be a superior predictor of in‐hospital mortality compared with MELD in limited cohorts. We identified specific classes of hospitalizations where MELD‐lactate may be especially useful and evaluated the predictive role of lactate clearance. This was a retrospective cohort study of 1036 cirrhosis hospitalizations for gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, or other portal hypertension–related indications in the Veterans Health Administration where MELD‐lactate was measured on admission. Performance characteristics for in‐hospital mortality were compared between MELD‐lactate and MELD/MELD‐sodium (MELD‐Na), with stratified analyses of MELD categories (≤15, >15 to <25, ≥25) and reason for admission. We also incorporated day 3 lactate levels into modeling and tested for an interaction between day 1 MELD‐lactate and day 3 lactate clearance. MELD‐lactate had superior discrimination for in‐hospital mortality compared with MELD or MELD‐Na (area under the curve [AUC] 0.789 versus 0.776 versus 0.760, respectively; P < 0.001) and superior calibration. MELD‐lactate had higher discrimination among hospitalizations with MELD ≤15 (AUC 0.763 versus 0.608 for MELD, global P = 0.01) and hospitalizations for infection (AUC 0.791 versus 0.674 for MELD, global P < 0.001). We found a significant interaction between day 1 MELD‐lactate and day 3 lactate clearance; heat maps were created as clinical tools to risk‐stratify patients based on these clinical data. MELD‐lactate had significantly superior performance in predicting in‐hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for infection and/or with MELD ≤15 when compared with MELD or MELD‐Na. Incorporating day 3 lactate clearance may further improve prognostication.

The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib improves hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) in an experimental model. However, the efficacy and adverse effect profile in patients with HPS are unknown. We aimed to determine the effect of sorafenib on the alveolar‐arterial oxygen gradient (AaPO2) at 3 months in patients with HPS. We performed a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled parallel trial of sorafenib in patients with HPS at 7 centers. A total of 28 patients with HPS were randomized to sorafenib 400 mg by mouth daily or a matching placebo in a 1:1 ratio. We found no statistically significant difference in the median change in AaPO2 from baseline to 12 weeks between the patients allocated to sorafenib (4.5 mm Hg; IQR, –3.8 to 7.0 mm Hg) and those allocated to placebo (–2.4 mm Hg; IQR, –4.8 to 8.2 mm Hg; P = 0.70). There was also no difference between the groups in terms of degree of intrapulmonary shunting by contrast echocardiography. Sorafenib significantly reduced circulating levels of angiogenic markers, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (P < 0.01) and TIE2‐expressing M2 monocytes (P = 0.03), but it reduced the mental component scores of the Short Form 36 (P = 0.04), indicating a worse quality of life. In conclusion, sorafenib did not change the AaPO2 or other disease markers at 3 months in patients with HPS. Alternative antiangiogenic therapies or treatments targeting other pathways should be investigated.