Benefits and Harms of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Outreach in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial

Amit G Singal, Darine Daher, Manasa Narasimman, Sruthi Yekkaluri MHI, Yan Liu, Vanessa Cerda, Chaitra Banala, Aisha Khan, MinJae Lee, Karim Seif El Dahan, Caitlin C Murphy, Jennifer R Kramer, Ruben Hernaez
{"title":"Benefits and Harms of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Outreach in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Multi-Center Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Amit G Singal, Darine Daher, Manasa Narasimman, Sruthi Yekkaluri MHI, Yan Liu, Vanessa Cerda, Chaitra Banala, Aisha Khan, MinJae Lee, Karim Seif El Dahan, Caitlin C Murphy, Jennifer R Kramer, Ruben Hernaez","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The value of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening is defined by the balance of benefits from early tumor detection vs harms due to false positive results. We evaluated the value of a mailed outreach strategy for HCC screening in patients with cirrhosis. Methods We conducted a multi-center pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing mailed outreach for HCC screening (n = 1436) and usual care with visit-based screening (n = 1436) among patients with cirrhosis at three health systems from March 2018 to September 2021. Outcomes of interest were early-stage HCC detection (ie, screening benefit) and diagnostic evaluation for false positive or indeterminate results (ie, screening harm). Screening harm was categorized as mild, moderate, and severe based on number and type of diagnostic exams. All patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. Results Of 125 patients diagnosed with HCC (67 outreach and 58 usual care), 71.2% were found at an early stage per the Milan Criteria. Early tumor detection did not significantly differ between the outreach and usual care arms (64.2% vs 79.3%, p = .06). The proportion of patients with physical harms also did not differ between the outreach and usual care arms (10.8% vs 10.7%, p = .95) with 5.9% in both arms having mild harms, 4.0% and 3.8% respectively with moderate harms, and 0.9% and 1.0% respectively with severe harms. Conclusion Most patients enrolled in HCC screening were detected at an early stage, and a minority experienced physical harms. A mailed outreach strategy did not significantly increase early HCC detection or physical harms compared to usual care. Clinical Trials number NCT02582918 and NCT03756051","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The value of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening is defined by the balance of benefits from early tumor detection vs harms due to false positive results. We evaluated the value of a mailed outreach strategy for HCC screening in patients with cirrhosis. Methods We conducted a multi-center pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing mailed outreach for HCC screening (n = 1436) and usual care with visit-based screening (n = 1436) among patients with cirrhosis at three health systems from March 2018 to September 2021. Outcomes of interest were early-stage HCC detection (ie, screening benefit) and diagnostic evaluation for false positive or indeterminate results (ie, screening harm). Screening harm was categorized as mild, moderate, and severe based on number and type of diagnostic exams. All patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. Results Of 125 patients diagnosed with HCC (67 outreach and 58 usual care), 71.2% were found at an early stage per the Milan Criteria. Early tumor detection did not significantly differ between the outreach and usual care arms (64.2% vs 79.3%, p = .06). The proportion of patients with physical harms also did not differ between the outreach and usual care arms (10.8% vs 10.7%, p = .95) with 5.9% in both arms having mild harms, 4.0% and 3.8% respectively with moderate harms, and 0.9% and 1.0% respectively with severe harms. Conclusion Most patients enrolled in HCC screening were detected at an early stage, and a minority experienced physical harms. A mailed outreach strategy did not significantly increase early HCC detection or physical harms compared to usual care. Clinical Trials number NCT02582918 and NCT03756051
肝细胞癌筛查推广对肝硬化患者的益处和危害:多中心随机临床试验
背景 肝细胞癌(HCC)筛查的价值取决于早期肿瘤检测带来的益处与假阳性结果造成的危害之间的平衡。我们评估了邮寄推广策略在肝硬化患者中进行 HCC 筛查的价值。方法 我们于 2018 年 3 月至 2021 年 9 月在三个医疗系统的肝硬化患者中开展了一项多中心实用随机临床试验,比较了 HCC 筛查的邮寄推广(n = 1436)和常规护理与上门筛查(n = 1436)。相关结果为早期 HCC 检测(即筛查获益)和假阳性或不确定结果的诊断评估(即筛查危害)。筛查危害根据诊断检查的数量和类型分为轻度、中度和重度。所有患者均纳入意向筛查分析。结果 在125名确诊为HCC的患者中(67名接受外展治疗,58名接受常规治疗),71.2%的患者按照米兰标准在早期发现肿瘤。早期肿瘤检出率在外展部和常规治疗部之间无明显差异(64.2% vs 79.3%,P = .06)。有身体伤害的患者比例在推广组和常规护理组之间也没有差异(10.8% vs 10.7%,p = .95),两组均有 5.9% 的患者有轻度伤害,分别有 4.0% 和 3.8% 的患者有中度伤害,分别有 0.9% 和 1.0% 的患者有重度伤害。结论 大多数参加 HCC 筛查的患者都能在早期阶段被发现,少数人受到了身体伤害。与常规护理相比,邮寄外展策略并未显著提高早期HCC检测率或身体伤害率。临床试验编号:NCT02582918 和 NCT03756051
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信