Hepatocellular carcinoma prediction beyond year 5 of oral therapy in a large cohort of Caucasian patients with chronic hepatitis B
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
•Study conducted in Caucasians with chronic hepatitis B, with or without cirrhosis, after 5 years of entecavir/tenofovir. •Age >50 years, baseline cirrhosis and liver stiffness ≥12 kPa at year 5 were independently associated with increased risk of HCC. •CAGE-B score based on age at year 5 and baseline cirrhosis in relation to LSM at year 5 reliably predicted HCC risk >5 years. •SAGE-B score based only on age and LSM at year 5 was also a reliable predictor of HCC incidence >5 years. Background & Aims Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may develop in patients with chronic hepatitis (CHB) even after 5 years of oral therapy and cannot be easily predicted. We assessed predictors of HCC development and the need for HCC surveillance in this setting. Methods Of 1,951 adult Caucasians with CHB included in the PAGE-B cohort, 1,427 (73%) had completed >5 years of follow-up under therapy without developing HCC by year 5. Median follow-up was 8.4 years from treatment onset. Points-based risk scores were developed to predict HCC risk after year 5. Results In years 5–12, HCC was diagnosed in 33/1,427 (2.3%) patients with cumulative incidences of 2.4%, 3.2% and 3.8% at 8, 10 and 12 years, respectively. Older age or age >50 years, baseline cirrhosis and liver stiffness (LSM) ≥12 kPa at year 5 were independently associated with increased HCC risk. The HCC incidence was lower in non-cirrhotics than cirrhotics at baseline with year-5 LSM <12; among cirrhotics at baseline, it was lower in those with year-5 LSM <12 than ≥12 kPa. CAGE-B score was based on age at year 5 and baseline cirrhosis in relation to LSM at year 5 and SAGE-B score was based only on age and LSM at year 5 (c-index = 0.809–0.814, 0.805–0.806 after bootstrap validation). Both scores offered 100% negative predictive values for HCC development in their low risk groups. Conclusions In Caucasians with CHB, the HCC risk after the first 5 years of antiviral therapy depends on age, baseline cirrhosis status and LSM at year 5. CAGE-B and particularly SAGE-B represent simple and reliable risk scores for HCC prediction and surveillance beyond year 5 of therapy. Lay summary In Caucasians with chronic hepatitis B, the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after the first 5 years of entecavir or tenofovir therapy depends on age, baseline cirrhosis status and liver stiffness at year 5, which can provide simple and reliable risk scores for hepatocellular carcinoma prediction and surveillance beyond year 5. In patients with cirrhosis at baseline, liver stiffness <12 kPa at year 5 is associated with lower HCC risk, but surveillance may be still required. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may develop in patients with chronic hepatitis (CHB) even after 5 years of oral therapy and cannot be easily predicted. We assessed predictors of HCC development and the need for HCC surveillance in this setting. Of 1,951 adult Caucasians with CHB included in the PAGE-B cohort, 1,427 (73%) had completed >5 years of follow-up under therapy without developing HCC by year 5. Median follow-up was 8.4 years from treatment onset. Points-based risk scores were developed to predict HCC risk after year 5. In years 5–12, HCC was diagnosed in 33/1,427 (2.3%) patients with cumulative incidences of 2.4%, 3.2% and 3.8% at 8, 10 and 12 years, respectively. Older age or age >50 years, baseline cirrhosis and liver stiffness (LSM) ≥12 kPa at year 5 were independently associated with increased HCC risk. The HCC incidence was lower in non-cirrhotics than cirrhotics at baseline with year-5 LSM <12; among cirrhotics at baseline, it was lower in those with year-5 LSM <12 than ≥12 kPa. CAGE-B score was based on age at year 5 and baseline cirrhosis in relation to LSM at year 5 and SAGE-B score was based only on age and LSM at year 5 (c-index = 0.809–0.814, 0.805–0.806 after bootstrap validation). Both scores offered 100% negative predictive values for HCC development in their low risk groups. In Caucasians with CHB, the HCC risk after the first 5 years of antiviral therapy depends on age, baseline cirrhosis status and LSM at year 5. CAGE-B and particularly SAGE-B represent simple and reliable risk scores for HCC prediction and surveillance beyond year 5 of therapy.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».