Alpha-fetoprotein and/or liver ultrasonography for liver cancer screening in patients with chronic hepatitis B
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B infection may cause liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)). Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and liver ultrasonography (US) are used to screen these patients for HCC. It is uncertain whether screening is worthwhile. OBJECTIVES: To review randomized trials on screening for HCC with alpha-fetoprotein and/or liver ultrasonography among people with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) whether asymptomatic or with clinical liver disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant reports were searched from electronic databases until August 2002 (The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthStar, and the Chinese Medical Literature Electronic Databases, MedCyber) supplemented with manual searches on the bibliographies of papers found and communication to people familiar with chronic hepatitis B. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials on screening for liver cancer were included irrespective of language. Studies were excluded if the hepatitis B status was uncertain, if patients were not adequately followed, if the screening tests were not sensitive, widely-used ones, or if the test was used for diagnosis rather than screening for HCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We analyzed independently all the studies considered for inclusion. We wrote to the relevant authors for further information. Data were analyzed with Peto's odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Two trials met the selection criteria. One trial (n = 18,816) compared bi-annual AFP plus US screening with no screening for five years. No data on all-cause mortality were available. The two groups did not differ significantly regarding HCC mortality (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22). Number of patients with HCC was significantly increased in the screeened group (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.88). Most HCCs in the screened group, but none in the control group, were at an early stage. The survival rate of patients with resected HCC in the screened group reached 52.7% after three and five years, but was 0% for those in the control group. The authors' estimated lead-time for HCC was 5.4 months, suggesting that screening prolonged the survival of HCC. Another trial (n = 1069) compared AFP plus US versus AFP screening, but could not decide which approach was superior due to the small sample size (number of detected HCC: OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.12). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There are not enough quality trials to support or refute screening of HBsAg-positive patients for HCC. It is possible that screening may be effective, but also that harm caused by screening/treatment may outweigh any gain. More and better-designed large randomized trials are required.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».