Parikh, Neehar D.

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.

Background and Aims: Despite the substantial impact of environmental factors, individuals with a family history of liver cancer have an increased risk for HCC. However, genetic factors have not been studied systematically by genome-wide approaches in large numbers of individuals from European descent populations (EDP). Approach and Results: We conducted a 2-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) on HCC not affected by HBV infections. A total of 1872 HCC cases and 2907 controls were included in the discovery stage, and 1200 HCC cases and 1832 controls in the validation. We analyzed the discovery and validation samples separately and then conducted a meta-analysis. All analyses were conducted in the presence and absence of HCV. The liability-scale heritability was 24.4% for overall HCC. Five regions with significant ORs (95% CI) were identified for nonviral HCC: 3p22.1, MOBP, rs9842969, (0.51, [0.40–0.65]); 5p15.33, TERT, rs2242652, (0.70, (0.62–0.79]); 19q13.11, TM6SF2, rs58542926, (1.49, [1.29–1.72]); 19p13.11 MAU2, rs58489806, (1.53, (1.33–1.75]); and 22q13.31, PNPLA3, rs738409, (1.66, [1.51–1.83]). One region was identified for HCV-induced HCC: 6p21.31, human leukocyte antigen DQ beta 1, rs9275224, (0.79, [0.74–0.84]). A combination of homozygous variants of PNPLA3 and TERT showing a 6.5-fold higher risk for nonviral-related HCC compared to individuals lacking these genotypes. This observation suggests that gene-gene interactions may identify individuals at elevated risk for developing HCC. Conclusions: Our GWAS highlights novel genetic susceptibility of nonviral HCC among European descent populations from North America with substantial heritability. Selected genetic influences were observed for HCV-positive HCC. Our findings indicate the importance of genetic susceptibility to HCC development.

Background & Aims: Early-stage HCC can be treated with thermal ablation or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We retrospectively compared local progression, mortality, and toxicity among patients with HCC treated with ablation or SBRT in a multicenter, US cohort. Approach & Results: We included adult patients with treatment-naïve HCC lesions without vascular invasion treated with thermal ablation or SBRT per individual physician or institutional preference from January 2012 to December 2018. Outcomes included local progression after a 3-month landmark period assessed at the lesion level and overall survival at the patient level. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to account for imbalances in treatment groups. The Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to compare progression and overall survival, and logistic regression was used for toxicity. There were 642 patients with 786 lesions (median size: 2.1 cm) treated with ablation or SBRT. In adjusted analyses, SBRT was associated with a reduced risk of local progression compared to ablation (aHR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15–0.60). However, SBRT-treated patients had an increased risk of liver dysfunction at 3 months (absolute difference 5.5%, aOR 2.31, 95% CI: 1.13–4.73) and death (aHR 2.04, 95% CI: 1.44–2.88, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In this multicenter study of patients with HCC, SBRT was associated with a lower risk of local progression compared to thermal ablation but higher all-cause mortality. Survival differences may be attributable to residual confounding, patient selection, or downstream treatments. These retrospective real-world data help guide treatment decisions while demonstrating the need for a prospective clinical trial.

Background: The effectiveness of ultrasound-based surveillance for HCC in patients with cirrhosis is limited by suboptimal sensitivity for early tumor detection and poor adherence. Emerging blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative surveillance strategy. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of a multitarget HCC blood test (mt-HBT)—with and without improved adherence—against ultrasound-based HCC surveillance. Methods: We developed a Markov-based mathematical model that simulated a virtual trial in patients with compensated cirrhosis comparing potential surveillance strategies: biannual surveillance using ultrasound, ultrasound plus AFP, and mt-HBT with or without improved adherence (+10% increase). We used published data to inform underlying liver disease progression rates, HCC tumor growth patterns, performance characteristics of surveillance modalities, and efficacy of treatments. Primary outcomes of interest were the number of early-stage HCCs detected and life years gained. Results: Per 100,000 patients with cirrhosis, mt-HBT detected 1680 more early-stage HCCs than ultrasound alone and 350 more early-stage HCCs than ultrasound + AFP, yielding an additional 5720 and 1000 life years, respectively. mt-HBT with improved adherence detected 2200 more early-stage HCCs than ultrasound and 880 more early-stage HCCs than ultrasound + AFP, yielding an additional 8140 and 3420 life years, respectively. The number of screening tests needed to detect one HCC case was 139 with ultrasound, 122 with ultrasound + AFP, 119 with mt-HBT, and 124 with mt-HBT with improved adherence. Conclusions: mt-HBT is a promising alternative to ultrasound-based HCC surveillance, particularly given anticipated improved adherence with blood-based biomarkers could increase HCC surveillance effectiveness.

AbstractIntroductionIn October 2021, the American Society of Transplantation (AST) hosted a virtual consensus conference aimed at identifying and addressing barriers to the broader, safe expansion of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) throughout the United States (US).MethodsA multidisciplinary group of LDLT experts convened to address issues related to financial implications on the donor, transplant center crisis management, regulatory and oversight policies, and ethical considerations by assessing the relative significance of issues in preventing LDLT growth, with proposed strategies to overcome barriers.ResultsLiving liver donors endure multiple obstacles including financial instability, loss of job security, and potential morbidity. These concerns, along with other center, state, and federal specific policies can be perceived as significant barriers to expanding LDLT. Donor safety is of paramount importance to the transplant community; however, regulatory and oversight policies aimed at ensuring donor safety can be viewed as ambiguous and complicated leading to time‐consuming evaluations that may deter donor motivation and program expansion.ConclusionTransplant programs need to establish appropriate crisis management plans to mitigate potential negative donor outcomes and ensure program viability and stability. Finally, ethical aspects, including informed consent for high‐risk recipients and use of non‐directed donors, can be perceived as additional barriers to expanding LDLT.

As the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and subsequent treatments with liver‐directed therapies rise, the complexity of assessing lesion response has also increased. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (LI‐RADS) treatment response algorithm (LI‐RADS TRA) was created to standardize the assessment of response after locoregional therapy (LRT) on contrast‐enhanced CT or MRI. Originally created based on expert opinion, these guidelines are currently undergoing revision based on emerging evidence. While many studies support the use of LR‐TRA for evaluation of HCC response after thermal ablation and intra‐arterial embolic therapy, data suggest a need for refinements to improve assessment after radiation therapy. In this manuscript, we review expected MR imaging findings after different forms of LRT, clarify how to apply the current LI‐RADS TRA by type of LRT, explore emerging literature on LI‐RADS TRA, and highlight future updates to the algorithm.Evidence Level3.Technical EfficacyStage 2.

AbstractBackgroundTransarterial radioembolization (TARE) is increasingly used as an alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to perform an overall and individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis of studies comparing TACE and TARE.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search using pre‐specified keywords with the aid of an informationist for articles from inception to 3/2020. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was time to progression (TTP).ResultsSeventeen studies met inclusion criteria with 2465 unique patients, with one randomized trial, 4 prospective studies and 12 retrospective studies. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B (42.8%) was the most common stage followed by BCLC A (30.3%) and BCLC C (29.0%). There was no difference in OS between the two modalities (−0.55 months, 95% CI −1.95 to 3.05). In three studies with available TTP data, TARE resulted in a longer TTP than TACE (mean TTP 17.5 vs. 9.8 months; mean TTP difference 4.8 months, 95% CI 1.3–8.3 months). IPD‐level meta‐analysis of 311 patients from three studies showed no difference in overall OS between the two modalities including among subgroups stratified by tumor stage and liver function. Limitations of the current literature include inconsistent length of follow‐up, inconsistency in response criteria, and safety reporting.ConclusionsCurrent data suggest TARE provides significantly longer TTP than TACE, although the two treatments do not significantly differ in terms of OS. Given limitations of the current data, there is rationale for prospective studies comparing these modalities.

TPS486 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. HCC surveillance is associated with improved early detection and receipt of curative treatment. However, current surveillance strategies suffer from low adherence and suboptimal sensitivity. The multi-target HCC blood test (mt-HBT) is a novel early detection assay that provides a qualitative result based on a multiparametric algorithm that incorporates information from methylation markers ( HOXA1, TSPYL5, and B3GALT6), AFP, and patient sex. Here, we describe the protocol for a prospective, multicenter clinical trial designed to investigate the performance of the mt-HBT in patients at risk for HCC. Methods: ALTernative to U/S (ALTUS) is a longitudinal, multicenter, prospective study with a targeted enrollment of 3,000 participants. The main inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in the table. Participants will receive HCC surveillance imaging (either U/S or CT/MRI) and blood collection for the mt-HBT. Those with positive U/S are anticipated to receive standard-of-care imaging follow-up with a multiphase CT or MRI, and those with a negative U/S will receive a study CT/MRI within 30 days of blood collection. Imaging interpretation is based on the CT/MRI LI-RADS (LR) v2018 categories. The primary endpoints are the overall sensitivity and specificity of the mt-HBT to detect HCC, defined as pathology-confirmed HCC or hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA), LR-4/5, or LR-TIV/M plus definite/probable HCC or cHCC-CCA. The secondary endpoints are mt-HBT early-stage sensitivity, and performance in a) participants with LR-5 or biopsy-confirmed HCC and b) participants confirmed non-HCC. Participants not diagnosed with a liver malignancy at visit one will continue to receive HCC surveillance, returning for a second visit ̃6 months from first blood collection. Blood will be collected after the second visit for the mt-HBT. Data on treatment will be collected for those diagnosed with HCC. Study participants and providers will be blinded to the mt-HBT results. Participants are currently enrolling across the U.S., with 60 targeted sites and an anticipated 12-month enrollment window. Clinical trial information: NCT05064553. [Table: see text]

405 Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fastest rising cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Although clinical guidelines recommend ultrasound (U/S), with or without the serum biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) for HCC surveillance in at-risk patients, only 24% of patients adhere to surveillance and only one-third of HCCs are detected before developing symptoms. A multi-target HCC blood-based test (mt-HBT) was recently shown to have promising sensitivity for early HCC detection and may help improve surveillance adherence given its blood-based nature. Our objective was to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness of mt-HBT with the current standard-of-care surveillance strategy in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We simulated a virtual trial by developing a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCC in patients with compensated (Child Pugh A) cirrhosis over a 30-year horizon. To inform model parameters, we used published data on tumor progression, competing risks of mortality, and real-world HCC surveillance adherence. Test performance characteristics were informed by a network meta-analysis. We simulated the life course of 51-year-old patients with cirrhosis and compared no surveillance with biannual surveillance using (1) AFP only, (2) U/S only, (3) U/S+AFP, (4) mt-HBT, and (5) mt-HBT with improved adherence. We assumed a blood-based test—without U/S—would improve surveillance adherence by 10% compared with current adherence (̃4% absolute improvement). Results: Per 100,000 cirrhosis patients, mt-HBT detected 6,220 more early-stage HCC than no surveillance, 2,250 (+57%) more than AFP, 1080 (+21%) more than U/S, and 200 (-3%) less than U/S+AFP. mt-HBT with improved adherence detected 210 (+3%) more early-stage HCC than U/S+AFP (Table). The remaining HCC cases were either symptomatic or the patients died per other competing causes prior to detection. The number of screening tests needed to detect one HCC were 296 for AFP, 287 for U/S, 253 for U/S+AFP, 254 for mt-HBT and 262 for mt-HBT with improved adherence. The number of diagnostic MRI/CT needed to detect one HCC were 40 for AFP, 38 for U/S, 45 for U/S+AFP, 37 for mt-HBT, and 38 for mt-HBT with improved adherence. Conclusions: mt-HBT detects more early-HCC cases than U/S and similar number of early-HCC cases with U/S+AFP. By decreasing surveillance barriers and increasing adherence, mt-HBT could improve early HCC detection and could be promising option for HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. [Table: see text]

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.