Parikh, Neehar D

Background : Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major cause of cancer-related mortality. Optimal treatment decisions are challenging, and existing treatment allocation frameworks may not fully reflect the evolving therapeutic landscape or contemporary clinical practices in North America. Methods : Using a modified Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 20 North American experts in hepatology, medical oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology developed a consensus-based treatment framework for HCC, termed the BEACON-HCC system. The framework was informed by current evidence and expert opinion through iterative discussion and voting. In a pilot study using 29 real-world patient cases, we assessed concordance between external expert recommendations and BEACON-HCC recommendations and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 2025 treatment recommendations. Results : The BEACON-HCC treatment allocation framework diverges from prior frameworks by incorporating nuanced clinical features such as degree of intrahepatic tumor burden and vascular invasion, and adverse tumor prognostic markers, to align treatment allocation with tumor biology and therapeutic potential. Key innovations include the incorporation of emerging modalities such as external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic-locoregional combination therapies. In the pilot exercise, expert treatment decisions showed 96.6% concordance with BEACON-HCC recommendations and 72.4% concordance with BCLC recommendations. Conclusions : BEACON-HCC is a consensus-based framework for treatment allocation that incorporates the expanding range of therapeutic options available to patients in the North American HCC population. Expert treatment decisions showed a high concordance with the BEACON-HCC system; further validation using empiric clinical data is planned through the HCC-Live Consortium.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a poor long-term prognosis due to high recurrence and cirrhosis-related mortality, even after potentially curative treatments such as liver transplantation (LT), surgical resection, or ablation. This study aimed to identify factors associated with ≥10-year survival in HCC patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among HCC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2022 using the National Cancer Database. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify predictors of overall survival, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ≥10-year survival. Results: Among 249,600 HCC patients, 177,585 (71.2%) died within 5 years, 8613 (3.5%) died at 5–10 years, 54,988 (22.0%) were alive with <10 years of follow-up, and 8219 (3.3%) survived ≥10 years. LT, resection, and ablation were performed in 6.6%, 9.3%, and 11% of patients, respectively. Compared with ablation as the reference group, LT [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 11.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 11.27–13.29] and resection (aOR: 2.83, 95% CI: 2.57–3.08) increased the odds of ≥10-year survival, while non-curative treatments reduced the odds compared with ablation (aOR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.47–0.55). Cox regression results were consistent with the logistic model, confirming the association. Decision tree analysis confirmed LT as the dominant determinant of long-term survival. Black individuals were associated with lower odds of ≥10-year survival (aOR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.820–0.96) and decreased likelihood of receiving LT (aOR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55–0.96). Conclusions: LT offers the best chance of ≥10-year survival in HCC. Ensuring equitable access is essential, especially for Black patients who have lower transplant rates and worse outcomes.

Background: Blood-based biomarker panels, including GALAD, have been proposed as an alternative to abdominal ultrasound for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance. Studies suggest longitudinal evaluation of biomarkers can improve test performance; however, no large studies have validated these findings. Methods: We leveraged the HCC Early Detection Strategy (HEDS) study (n=1019 patients with cirrhosis; 99 incident HCC) and Texas HCC Consortium (THCCC) (n=2345 patients with cirrhosis; 126 incident HCC) to compare the performance of fixed-threshold GALAD (cutoff of −1.36), and 4 longitudinal algorithms: longitudinal GALAD, PALAD, mFB-ALAD, and mPEB-ALAD. The HEDS cohort was used to derive longitudinal algorithms, and external validation was performed in THCCC. Patient-level sensitivity and test-level false-positive rate (FPR) were examined overall and across subgroups by age, sex, and cirrhosis etiology. Results: In THCCC, fixed-threshold GALAD had higher sensitivity in the 6 months before HCC diagnosis (71.4%, 95% CI: 62.9%–81.7%) than longitudinal GALAD (55.1%, 95% CI: 49.3–66.4), PALAD (55.1%, 95% CI: 50.0%–70.5%), mPEB-ALAD (53.1%, 95% CI: 43.6%–62.0%), and mFB-ALAD (42.9%, 95% CI: 32.3–48.5). However, fixed-threshold GALAD had a higher FPR (25.4%, 95% CI: 23.7%–26.9%) compared with longitudinal GALAD (15.0%, 95% CI: 12.8%–15.8%), PALAD (13.0%, 95% CI: 10.2%–14.6%), and mFB-ALAD (11.2%, 95% CI: 9.6%–12.1%) but comparable to mPEB-ALAD (22.9%, 95% CI: 21.2%–23.8%). In subgroup analyses, fixed-threshold GALAD had the highest FPR in males (35.6%) and those aged ≥65 (43.5%); longitudinal algorithms had significantly lower FPRs in subgroups but with lower sensitivity for HCC. Conclusions: Improvements in FPRs with longitudinal GALAD algorithms, as compared with fixed-threshold GALAD, are offset by significantly decreased sensitivity for HCC detection.

Background and Aims: Liver transplant is a specialized treatment for a spectrum of indications that use a scarce resource. Transplant is guided by principles of justice, equity, and benefit, with a constant conflict between competing interests. Organs are a national resource with a goal of equitable distribution across sites. An AASLD guideline for the evaluation and selection of appropriate candidates for transplant has been available since 2005. Methods: A multidisciplinary writing group of liver transplant experts and a librarian convened over 24 months. The writing group reviewed the literature, generated guideline recommendations, and rated the level of evidence for each recommendation based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. The group categorized the strength of recommendations based on the level of evidence, risk-benefit ratio, and patient preferences. Conclusions: Liver transplant is a lifesaving procedure that should be offered to selected patients with clear indications and a reasonable prospect of benefit. The evaluation is designed to identify those in need, to outline hurdles to a successful outcome, and to develop an effective transplant plan. The goal of this document is to provide a template for this process.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and worldwide. HCC screening among patients at elevated risk is associated with improved early detection and overall survival, but current ultrasound-based screening strategies are challenged by low adherence and suboptimal sensitivity. Blood-based screening tests have the potential to enhance adherence and improve early-stage HCC detection if they can demonstrate favorable performance compared with ultrasound-based screening. Here we present the design and rationale for ALTUS (A lternative to Ultrasound), a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study in the United States to investigate the performance of the multi-target HCC blood test (mt-HBT) for the detection of HCC in a screening population. Methods: Adults with liver cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B infection will be enrolled to undergo standard-of-care screening imaging and concurrent blood collection for the mt-HBT. All participants will undergo contrast-enhanced CT or MRI imaging with central radiology LI-RADS assessment as the reference method to determine HCC status. Participants without an identified malignancy will undergo a second screening visit and blood collection, and longitudinal clinical and imaging data will be collected up to 18 months from enrollment. The primary study objectives are to demonstrate that the mt-HBT is non-inferior to ultrasound for early-stage HCC sensitivity and to assess mt-HBT HCC specificity. The secondary objective is to assess mt-HBT overall sensitivity. Results: ALTUS is in progress with readout of the primary analysis expected in 2025. Conclusions: This prospective head-to-head comparison of the mt-HBT versus ultrasound will provide novel data regarding the performance and utility of the mt-HBT for HCC screening.

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) mortality is increasing globally, partly due to the growing prevalence of nonviral liver diseases. Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) have identified genetic variants associated with HCC development. Leveraging GWAS summary statistics and linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSR), we investigated disease co‐development with hepatitis C virus‐negative (HCV‐negative) HCC to provide unique insights into HCC etiology and prioritize relationships for further causal inquiry. We utilized the LDSR statistical framework to estimate the genetic correlation and heritability between HCV‐negative HCC with 901 epidemiologic, behavioral, and clinical traits from the United Kingdom Biobank (UKBB). First, we set the threshold for observed scale heritability of each trait at 0.02 to ensure reliable inferences with adequate study power. Next, we observed significant positive genetic correlations between HCV‐negative HCC and blood‐based biomarkers of liver injury (ALT, GGT) and allostatic load (including glycated hemoglobin, blood pressure, and total albumin). We also identified a positive genetic correlation between HCV‐negative HCC and diseases associated with metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), including diabetes, hypertension, chronic ischemic heart disease, and others. Taken together, our results help to identify polygenic and pleiotropic signals related to different phenotypic traits associated with HCC and support further exploration of the predictive power of blood‐based biomarkers identified in this study for inferring HCC development among HCV‐negative individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The prognostic value of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in these patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the association between irAEs and clinical outcomes in patients with HCC treated with ICIs. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for articles published from inception to June 2024, using keywords including ICI, HCC, and irAEs. Statistical analysis was performed with a random effects model. RESULTS: Of 3,028 studies, 24 (4,127 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was the most common treatment regimen (n = 10 studies). IrAEs were associated with an increased objective response rate (pooled relative ratio: 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.36–2.21, I 2 = 41%), a higher disease control rate (pooled relative ratio: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.21–1.74, I 2 = 74%), and longer progression-free survival (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.52–0.84, I 2 = 71%). There was a trend toward longer overall survival for patients with irAEs compared with those without (pooled HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.63–1.12, I 2 = 73%). Subgroup analysis indicated a survival benefit for patients with grade 1–2 irAEs (pooled HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.36–0.67, I 2 = 0%) and for those with endocrine irAEs (pooled HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48–0.83, I 2 = 12%). DISCUSSION: The development of irAEs is associated with favorable clinical outcomes in HCC, including improved progression-free survival and higher objective response rate. Overall survival benefit was noted in patients with mild irAEs but not those with severe irAEs.

Background and Aims: Immunotherapy has emerged as an effective treatment for advanced HCC. We aimed to investigate the real-world effectiveness of immunotherapy compared to lenvatinib in HCC. Approach and Results: From the TriNetX database, we used a target trial emulation framework and identified patients with HCC who received first-line treatment with immunotherapy (atezolizumab/bevacizumab or tremelimumab/durvalumab) or lenvatinib between or between August 2018 and December 2023. OS was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression. After propensity score matching, 1203 patients were included in each group. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS versus lenvatinib (median survival: 545 vs. 425 d; HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76–0.97). Regarding treatment type, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed improved survival compared to lenvatinib (n=1070 in each group; HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77–0.99), while the point estimate favored durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus lenvatinib (HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.59–1.12), though this difference was not statistically significant, likely due to small sample size. Regarding etiology, immunotherapy had improved OS compared to lenvatinib in viral hepatitis (n=510 in each group; HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61–0.89) and alcohol-associated liver disease (n=190 in each group; HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49–0.87), but not in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver diseases (n=156 in each group; HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70–1.31). Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared to lenvatinib in advanced HCC, with consistent benefit across most subgroups. These findings support the use of immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced HCC.

INTRODUCTION: One of the primary goals of the Liver Cirrhosis Network (LCN) is to develop a cohort study to better understand and predict the risk of hepatic decompensation and other clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with Child A cirrhosis. METHODS: The LCN consists of a Scientific Data Coordinating Center and 10 clinical centers whose investigators populate multiple committees. The LCN Definitions and Measurements Committee developed preliminary definitions of cirrhosis and its complications by literature review, expert opinion, and reviewing definition documents developed by other organizations. The Cohort Committee developed the study protocol with the input of the steering committee. RESULTS: The LCN developed a prospective cohort study to describe and predict the rates of incident clinical events pertaining to first decompensation and patient-reported outcomes. The LCN developed a pragmatic definition of compensated cirrhosis incorporating clinical, laboratory, imaging, and histological criteria. Definitions of incident and recompensated ascites, overt hepatic encephalopathy, variceal hemorrhage, bleeding because of portal gastropathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma were also codified. DISCUSSION: The LCN Cohort Study design will inform the natural history of cirrhosis in contemporary patients with compensated cirrhosis. The LCN Definitions and Measures Committee developed criteria for the definition of cirrhosis to standardize entry into this multicenter cohort study and standardized criteria for liver-related outcome measures. This effort has produced definitions intended to be both sensitive and specific as well as easily operationalized by study staff such that outcomes critical to the LCN cohort are identified and reported in an accurate and generalizable fashion. REGISTRATION: NCT05740358.

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.