Jichun Yang , Zhirong Yang , Xueyang Zeng , Shuqing Yu , Le Gao , Yu Jiang , Feng Sun
{"title":"高危人群肝细胞癌筛查的利与弊:系统回顾与荟萃分析","authors":"Jichun Yang , Zhirong Yang , Xueyang Zeng , Shuqing Yu , Le Gao , Yu Jiang , Feng Sun","doi":"10.1016/j.jncc.2023.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been increasing around the world. Current guidelines recommend HCC screening in high-risk population. However, the strength of evidence of benefits and harms of HCC screening to support the recommendation was unclear. The objective is to systematically synthesize current evidence on the benefits and harms of HCC screening.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched PubMed and nine other databases until August 20, 2021. We included cohort studies and RCTs that compared the benefits and harms of screening and non-screening in high-risk population of HCC. Case series studies that reported harms of HCC screening were also included. Pooled risk ratio (RR), according to HCC screening status, was calculated for each benefit outcome (e.g., HCC mortality, survival rate, proportion of early HCC), using head-to-head meta-analysis. The harmful outcomes (e.g., proportion of physiological harms provided by non-comparative studies were pooled by prevalence of meta-analysis. Analysis on publication bias and quality of life, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 70 studies, including four random clinical trials (RCTs), 63 cohort studies,three case series studies. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed HCC screening was significantly associated with reduced HCC mortality (RR [risk ratio], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56–0.96]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 75.1%), prolonged overall survival rates (1-year, RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.13–2.61]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 72.5%; 3-year, RR, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.78–4.58]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 10.1%; and 5-year, RR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.37–5.54]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 28.3%), increased proportion of early HCC detection (RR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.77–4.06]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 50.4%). Similarly, meta-analysis of cohort studies indicated HCC screening was more effective than non-screening. However, pooled proportion of physiological harms was 16.30% (95% CI: 8.92%–23.67%) and most harms were of a mild to moderate severity.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The existing evidence suggests HCC screening is more effective than non-screening in high-risk population. However, harms of screening should not be ignored.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Center","volume":"3 3","pages":"Pages 175-185"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benefits and harms of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk populations: systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jichun Yang , Zhirong Yang , Xueyang Zeng , Shuqing Yu , Le Gao , Yu Jiang , Feng Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jncc.2023.02.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been increasing around the world. Current guidelines recommend HCC screening in high-risk population. However, the strength of evidence of benefits and harms of HCC screening to support the recommendation was unclear. The objective is to systematically synthesize current evidence on the benefits and harms of HCC screening.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched PubMed and nine other databases until August 20, 2021. We included cohort studies and RCTs that compared the benefits and harms of screening and non-screening in high-risk population of HCC. Case series studies that reported harms of HCC screening were also included. Pooled risk ratio (RR), according to HCC screening status, was calculated for each benefit outcome (e.g., HCC mortality, survival rate, proportion of early HCC), using head-to-head meta-analysis. The harmful outcomes (e.g., proportion of physiological harms provided by non-comparative studies were pooled by prevalence of meta-analysis. Analysis on publication bias and quality of life, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 70 studies, including four random clinical trials (RCTs), 63 cohort studies,three case series studies. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed HCC screening was significantly associated with reduced HCC mortality (RR [risk ratio], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56–0.96]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 75.1%), prolonged overall survival rates (1-year, RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.13–2.61]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 72.5%; 3-year, RR, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.78–4.58]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 10.1%; and 5-year, RR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.37–5.54]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 28.3%), increased proportion of early HCC detection (RR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.77–4.06]; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 50.4%). Similarly, meta-analysis of cohort studies indicated HCC screening was more effective than non-screening. However, pooled proportion of physiological harms was 16.30% (95% CI: 8.92%–23.67%) and most harms were of a mild to moderate severity.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The existing evidence suggests HCC screening is more effective than non-screening in high-risk population. However, harms of screening should not be ignored.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Center\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 175-185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Center\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667005423000066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Center","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667005423000066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Benefits and harms of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk populations: systematic review and meta-analysis
Objective
The incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been increasing around the world. Current guidelines recommend HCC screening in high-risk population. However, the strength of evidence of benefits and harms of HCC screening to support the recommendation was unclear. The objective is to systematically synthesize current evidence on the benefits and harms of HCC screening.
Methods
We searched PubMed and nine other databases until August 20, 2021. We included cohort studies and RCTs that compared the benefits and harms of screening and non-screening in high-risk population of HCC. Case series studies that reported harms of HCC screening were also included. Pooled risk ratio (RR), according to HCC screening status, was calculated for each benefit outcome (e.g., HCC mortality, survival rate, proportion of early HCC), using head-to-head meta-analysis. The harmful outcomes (e.g., proportion of physiological harms provided by non-comparative studies were pooled by prevalence of meta-analysis. Analysis on publication bias and quality of life, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.
Results
We included 70 studies, including four random clinical trials (RCTs), 63 cohort studies,three case series studies. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed HCC screening was significantly associated with reduced HCC mortality (RR [risk ratio], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56–0.96]; I2 = 75.1%), prolonged overall survival rates (1-year, RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.13–2.61]; I2 = 72.5%; 3-year, RR, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.78–4.58]; I2 = 10.1%; and 5-year, RR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.37–5.54]; I2 = 28.3%), increased proportion of early HCC detection (RR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.77–4.06]; I2 = 50.4%). Similarly, meta-analysis of cohort studies indicated HCC screening was more effective than non-screening. However, pooled proportion of physiological harms was 16.30% (95% CI: 8.92%–23.67%) and most harms were of a mild to moderate severity.
Conclusion
The existing evidence suggests HCC screening is more effective than non-screening in high-risk population. However, harms of screening should not be ignored.