Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with cirrhosis: a systematic review protocol

Libby Sadler; Hayley Jones; Penny Whiting; Morwenna Rogers; Kelsey Watt; Matthew Cramp; Stephen Ryder; Ken Stein; Nicky Welton; Felicity Oppe; John Bell; Gabriel Rogers

doi:10.3310/nihropenres.13409.2

Home Browse Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with cirrhosis: a systematic review protocol

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Libby Sadler¹, Hayley Jones¹, Penny Whiting¹, [...] Morwenna Rogers², Kelsey Watt³, Matthew Cramp⁴, Stephen Ryder⁵, Ken Stein², Nicky Welton¹, Felicity Oppe⁶, John Bell⁶, Gabriel Rogers ⁷

Libby Sadler¹, Hayley Jones¹, [...] Penny Whiting¹, Morwenna Rogers², Kelsey Watt³, Matthew Cramp⁴, Stephen Ryder⁵, Ken Stein², Nicky Welton¹, Felicity Oppe⁶, John Bell⁶, Gabriel Rogers ⁷

PUBLISHED 02 May 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
² Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, England, UK
³ Radiology Department, Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny, Wales, UK
⁴ Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, England, UK
⁵ Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
⁶ Patient and Public Involvement, NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, UK
⁷ Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, N13 NPL, UK

Libby Sadler
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Hayley Jones
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Penny Whiting
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Morwenna Rogers
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Kelsey Watt
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Matthew Cramp
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Stephen Ryder
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Ken Stein
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Nicky Welton
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Felicity Oppe
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

John Bell
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Gabriel Rogers
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Liver cirrhosis is the largest risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and surveillance is therefore recommended among this population. Current guidance recommends surveillance with ultrasound, with or without alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). This review is part of a larger project looking at benefits, harms and costs of surveillance for HCC in people with cirrhosis. It aims to synthesise the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging or biomarker tests, alone or in combination, to identify HCC in adults with liver cirrhosis in a surveillance programme.

Methods

We will identify studies through a 2021 Cochrane review with similar eligibility criteria, and a database search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We will include diagnostic test accuracy studies with adult cirrhosis patients of any aetiology. Studies must assess at least one of the following index tests: ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP), lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), a genomic biomarker, or a diagnostic prediction model incorporating at least one of the above-mentioned tests. We will assess studies for risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We will combine data using bivariate random effects meta-analyses. For tests evaluated across varying diagnostic thresholds, we will produce pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity across the full range of numerical thresholds, where possible. Where sufficient studies compare two or more index tests, we will perform additional analyses to compare the accuracy of different tests. Where feasible, we will stratify all meta-analyses by tumour size and patient characteristics, including cirrhosis aetiology and liver disease severity.

Discussion

This review will synthesise evidence across the full range of possible surveillance tests, using advanced statistical methods to summarise accuracy across all thresholds and to compare the accuracy of different tests.

PROSPERO registration

CRD42022357163

Plain Language Summary

Plain English summary
What is the problem?
Liver cancer is a major cause of death. It is difficult to diagnose as it often does not cause symptoms. The earlier it is detected the more likely that treatment will be able to help. One of the main risk factors for developing liver cancer is “cirrhosis”. This is scarring of the liver caused by continuous, long-term liver damage. Liver damage is commonly caused by infection with a virus, drinking too much alcohol, or being overweight. To try and detect liver cancer earlier, it is recommended that people who have cirrhosis are tested regularly. Ultrasound scans and a blood test every 6 months are currently recommended. More scans are carried out to confirm the cancer diagnosis after a positive test.
What are we trying to find out?
We want to know what test is best at detecting liver cancer in people who have cirrhosis.
What are we going to do?
We are going to review the existing research on imaging tests (for example ultrasound or an MRI scan) and blood tests that may be helpful in detecting liver cancer.
We will use statistical models to answer the following questions:
How do these tests compare to one another?
How accurate are these tests when used together?
How accurate are these tests at picking up small tumours?
How does the accuracy of these tests change depending on the characteristics of the patient, for example, their age or gender?
Dissemination
We will publish the results in a scientific journal. We will also use them to create a statistical model that will weigh up the benefits and harms of different testing methods. Then, we will develop a decision-aid to summarise the pros and cons of regular testing. This will help people with cirrhosis decide whether they should be regularly tested.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC, cirrhosis, AFP, ultrasound, systematic review, surveillance, protocol

Corresponding author: Gabriel Rogers

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (project reference NIHR134670).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2024 Sadler L et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Sadler L, Jones H, Whiting P et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with cirrhosis: a systematic review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2024, 3:23 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13409.2) First published: 12 May 2023, 3:23 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13409.1) Latest published: 02 May 2024, 3:23 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13409.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We have responded to reviewer comments. In particular, we have made it clearer that this review is part of a broader project that will assess the benefits, harms and costs of surveillance for HCC.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Michael Pavlides
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ramesh P Arasaradnam and Ayman Bannaga

Background

Target condition being diagnosed

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of liver cancer and the third most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide¹. Most HCCs are asymptomatic, but when present symptoms include jaundice, loss of appetite, fatigue, nausea, and abdominal pain. In England, deaths from HCC have tripled between 1997 and 2017².

Cirrhosis of any aetiology is the largest risk factor for developing HCC, with approximately 80–90% of HCC cases having cirrhosis as a precursor condition³. The most common causes of cirrhosis are infection with hepatitis B and hepatitis C, as well as lifestyle factors such as chronic alcohol consumption, diabetes and obesity⁴. HCC develops in 1–6% of cirrhosis patients annually and is the leading cause of death among this population³. As a result, periodic follow-up (‘surveillance’) for HCC is usually recommended for people with cirrhosis^5–8. When diagnosed at an early stage, HCCs may be eligible for curative treatments such as transplantation or resection. This underlines the importance of early detection⁷.

Surveillance tests

Two main categories of tests are commonly used for the surveillance of HCC in people with cirrhosis.

1. Imaging tests: ultrasound (US) is safe and relatively inexpensive, and is currently recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for HCC surveillance. Computerised tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans have higher diagnostic performance but are also more expensive and time-consuming, and CT scans expose patients to harmful radiation⁹. Although sometimes used for surveillance, they are more frequently used to confirm the diagnosis following a positive screening test.
2. Laboratory diagnosis: the most frequently used serum marker for HCC surveillance is alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)⁹, which is recommended by some but not all guidance for HCC surveillance in people with cirrhosis^5–8. There is a growing body of evidence for the accuracy of other markers such as lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), and des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP), although these are not routinely used in clinical practice in the UK. There is also increasing interest in genomic biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs, which have developed in recent years as a novel method of early HCC diagnosis¹⁰.

Clinical pathway

Most guidance recommends abdominal US every six months^5–8 for people with cirrhosis. However, there are inconsistencies in guidance on whether patients should receive AFP (some recommend both US and AFP⁸, some recommend US ‘with or without AFP’⁷ and some do not recommend AFP^5,6), and who should receive surveillance. For example, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines do not recommend surveillance for those with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis due to low anticipated survival⁷. Following surveillance testing, confirmatory imaging tests and in some cases biopsy are needed to confirm the diagnosis and severity of cancer⁷. Biopsy is only recommended when results from diagnostic imaging are uncertain, as risks include bleeding and tumour spread⁹.

Rationale

This review will be conducted as part of a larger project on the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for HCC among people with cirrhosis. This systematic review is one of four work packages in this project, which also includes a systematic review to compare HCCs found under surveillance with those diagnosed incidentally or symptomatically (in terms of tumour characteristics, treatments and survival); a mathematical decision-analytic model using data from this review to estimate the lifetime costs, benefits and harms of different HCC surveillance regimens; and finally, a print-based patient decision-aid quantifying the expected benefits and harms of surveillance.

A 2021 Cochrane review evaluated the accuracy of AFP and ultrasound, alone or in combination, for diagnosing HCC in adults with chronic liver disease¹¹. However, this review was limited to just two surveillance tests and did not stratify by tumour size or patient characteristics such as cirrhosis aetiology fully e.g. they compared >80% viral aetiology with <80%. A 2022 systematic review used network meta-analysis to compare a novel multitarget HCC blood test (Mt-HBT) with US and AFP¹². Although this review used advanced statistical methods to compare each possible combination of tests, it is limited to just three surveillance tests, and again, did not fully stratify by important patient characteristics such as cirrhosis aetiology. Neither review estimated the accuracy of AFP across the full range of possible diagnostic thresholds.

Our research will substantially move the state of knowledge forward, by (a) identifying, appraising and synthesising evidence across the full range of possible surveillance tests using uniform standards, (b) stratifying results in consistent ways (differentiating between aetiology of underlying liver disease and size/stage of tumour detected where possible), and (c) using advanced statistical synthesis methods to summarise accuracy across all thresholds and to compare the accuracy of different tests.

Objectives

To review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging or biomarker tests, alone or in combination, to identify hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in adults with liver cirrhosis in the context of a surveillance programme.

Secondary objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of biomarker tests across all possible diagnostic thresholds
To compare the accuracy of alternative tests
To estimate how the diagnostic accuracy of tests varies with tumour size – in particular, to estimate the accuracy of tests in detecting smaller tumours present during early stages of cancer, if sufficient data are available
To investigate how other population characteristics (e.g. age, sex, comorbidities, different aetiologies of liver cirrhosis) affect diagnostic accuracy

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

We will not apply date restrictions. Studies that fulfil the following criteria will be eligible for inclusion:

Types of studies

In the first instance, we will include both 1-gate and 2-gate diagnostic accuracy studies. 1-gate studies are cross-sectional or prospective longitudinal analyses comparing index and reference standard test results in patients with cirrhosis and unknown HCC status, whereas 2-gate studies compare index tests results in cirrhosis patients known to have HCC with index test results in cirrhosis patients without HCC¹³. We will exclude 2-gate designs with healthy controls, as this design is likely to lead to inflated estimates of specificity^14,15.

We will record the study design during the screening stage, and may exclude all 2-gate studies depending on the quantity of 1-gate studies and the overall quality of the evidence.

Participants

Adults (18 years or older) with cirrhosis of any aetiology who have never had HCC. We will exclude studies with healthy participants at baseline. As the review is focused on routine surveillance for HCC among people with cirrhosis (rather than testing prompted by clinical symptoms), we will exclude studies in which all participants have clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of possible HCC at baseline. For 2-gate designs, study participants with HCC must be treatment-naïve at time of testing.

Index tests

Imaging tests:

Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging
Any other type of ultrasound imaging
Multiphase HCC-specific protocol CT imaging
MRI imaging

Conventional biomarkers:

Any AFP test (plasma or serum samples quantified by ELISA or chemiluminescence)
Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3)
Des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP) (AKA protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonists II (PIVKA-II))

Genomic biomarkers:

We will include any genomic biomarker for the detection of HCC in the first instance, provided it has been assessed in a validation cohort (rather than only a discovery cohort). If identified studies encompass a wide range of potential genomic targets addressed in single studies, we will focus our attention on those that our clinical advisers believe are most feasible to adopt in the NHS and/or those that have been studied in multiple cohorts.

We will also include validated diagnostic prediction models incorporating one or more of the index tests above. Possible examples include:

GALAD¹⁶
Multitarget HCC blood test (mt-HBT)¹⁷
Doylestown algorithm¹⁸

We will only include studies where investigators have used the prediction model as a binary classifier with a prespecified threshold; we will exclude derivation studies and those where threshold is manipulated post hoc to maximise some accuracy criterion.

Target condition

Hepatocellular carcinoma

Reference standards

We will include any reference standard in the first instance and categorise studies at the screening stage depending on the strength of their reference standard:

Explant pathology following transplantation, where transplantation is unrelated to HCC
Histology of resected or biopsied lesions
Radiological follow-up (any form of imaging) to define true disease status (with at least 6 months’ follow-up following the index test)
Radiological testing (any form of imaging) with any form of follow-up to define true disease status (with at least 6 months’ follow-up following the index test)
Radiological testing without follow-up
Reference standard is only performed when surveillance tests are positive
Patients are diagnosed from medical records (no further information)
Reference standard is unreported

We initially piloted our eligibility criteria on a small sample of studies, which highlighted the need to keep the inclusion criteria for the reference standard broad. However, if there is enough evidence, we may exclude studies with reference standards that are more likely to introduce bias. We consider the first three reference standards (explant pathology, histology and radiological follow-up) to be preferable, as they are most likely to find HCC when it is present (i.e. they are least likely to misclassify false-negative cases as true-negatives).

Exclusion criteria

We will exclude two-gate studies in which HCC patients have received treatment before the index test(s) was conducted, unless <5% of all included participants have received treatment, or we can isolate the data for these participants. In the first instance we will not include studies in which <100% of participants have cirrhosis, unless stratified data are presented such that it is possible to extract data relating to only participants with cirrhosis. We will consider broadening our criteria to include studies in which participants have other liver diseases, as long as a majority have cirrhosis, depending on the quantity of evidence. We will flag studies in which >50% but <100% of participants with liver disease have cirrhosis at the screening stage.

We will exclude studies in languages other than English; however, we will list those with English abstracts that appear relevant. We will not include conference abstracts in the first instance but will consider broadening our criteria if the evidence from full publications is sparse or conflicting (if necessary, with the aid of supplementary targeted searches). We will exclude studies with insufficient data to populate a 2×2 table of test results.

Information sources

We will identify studies through two methods:

Cochrane review

For studies on the accuracy of AFP and ultrasound, we will use the recent Cochrane review on the same topic with similar eligibility criteria to ours to identify evidence¹¹. We will assess the 373 included studies, as well as the 292 articles excluded by the Cochrane review authors at full text, against our eligibility criteria.

Database searches

To identify evidence published since the Cochrane review search (June 2020)¹¹, and evidence on the accuracy of other index tests relevant to this review, we will carry out database searches.

We will search MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant evidence. There will be no restrictions on language or publication period. We will only identify published evidence. Our search combines terms covering liver cirrhosis and hepatitis with terms for HCC, terms for diagnostic methods and terms for specific tests used in HCC. We will add the strategy used in the previous Cochrane search to the search up until June 2020, and remove the results. We will add back in terms for tests other than AFP or US. The search strategy as designed for MEDLINE is available as extended data¹⁹.

We will check reference lists of related systematic reviews. Additionally, we will carry out forward citation-chasing of relevant past reviews using Scopus. We will run update searches no more than six months before we submit the results for publication to identify studies published while the review is being conducted.

Selection of studies

Cochrane review

Two independent reviewers will assess the full texts of the 326 included studies in the Cochrane review, as well as the 292 articles excluded at full text, against our eligibility criteria using Microsoft Access¹¹. We will reach consensus through discussion or the intervention of a third reviewer.

Database searches

Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts identified through database searching in Microsoft Access. They will select and compare potentially relevant studies, and reach consensus through discussion or the intervention of a third reviewer to determine which records we will assess at full text. Two independent reviewers will assess full-text articles to determine whether they meet the criteria for inclusion in the review. We will document articles excluded at full text along with reasons for exclusion. We will resolve disagreements between reviewers through discussion or the intervention of a third reviewer.

Data collection and analysis

Data extraction and management

We will extract data using standardised data extraction forms developed in Microsoft Access 2016. We will pilot these on a small sample of papers and adapt as needed. One reviewer will carry out data extraction and a second will check extracted data for accuracy, with disagreements resolved through discussion or the intervention of a third reviewer.

We will extract the following data where reported:

1. Study characteristics (identifier, study design, sample size, study location, method of recruitment [eg surveillance programme], year(s) of recruitment)
2. Patient characteristics (age, sex, aetiology of cirrhosis, Child-Pugh score, mean size of tumour/tumour number, inclusion and exclusion criteria)
3. Index test details (test assessed, test methods/protocols, threshold(s) for test positivity/positivity criteria)
4. Reference standard details (name of test, procedure, findings)
5. 2×2 data on index test performance (number of true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives) at each reported threshold. If a study reports on accuracy of two or more of our index tests, we will extract full cross-classified data (e.g. 2×2×2 table for 2 index tests) where available. Otherwise, we will extract separate 2×2 tables for each index test. If count data are not available, we will construct these from reported measures of diagnostic accuracy if possible.
6. Where test result data is presented for subgroups of interest (e.g. by aetiology of cirrhosis), we will also extract these separately
7. We will extract accuracy measures e.g. sensitivity or specificity to check these are consistent with extracted cross-classified test results

Assessment of methodological quality

We will use the QUADAS-2 tool²⁰, and QUADAS-C for comparative accuracy studies²¹ to assess the risk of bias and applicability of included studies as part of the data extraction process. These have domains relating to bias from participants, the index test(s), the reference standard and flow and timing. We will tailor the tools to the review with specific guidance for answering signalling questions. If at least one of the domains is rated ‘high’, we will consider the study at high risk of bias. If all domains are rated ‘low’, we will consider the study at low risk of bias. Otherwise, we will rate the study as ‘unclear’ overall. Studies will be only rated as low risk of bias for the reference standard domain if they use explant pathology following transplantation, histology of resected or biopsied lesions, or radiological follow-up with at least 6-months’ follow-up following the index test for patients without HCC. Studies will be only rated as low risk of bias for the flow and timing domain if they have ≤3 months between index test and reference standard.

Statistical analysis and data synthesis

For each index test, where each study reports data relating to only a single diagnostic threshold we will synthesise data using bivariate random effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity²², which accounts for between-study correlation between true- and false-positive results. We will assume binomial likelihoods for numbers of true positives and true negatives, avoiding problems associated with normal approximations²³. We will present paired forest plots of sensitivity and specificity, and plots of study-specific estimates and meta-analysis results in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space. When diagnostic thresholds do not vary substantially across studies, we will present pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity from these meta-analyses, with 95% credible ellipses representing joint uncertainty. Where there is variation in thresholds across studies, we will use the equivalence of the bivariate and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) models to draw summary ROC curves^24,25.

For continuous biomarkers (e.g. AFP), we anticipate that many studies will report accuracy at more than one diagnostic threshold. In this situation, we will instead synthesise data using the model of Jones et al., which uses all available test accuracy data to produce pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity across the full range of numerical thresholds²⁶.

Where sufficient studies are available comparing two or more index tests, we will perform bivariate meta-regression of sensitivity and specificity, with index test as a covariate, using ‘comparative’ studies only, to enable unbiased inference about how the accuracy of tests compares²⁷. Additionally, if sufficient fully cross-classified data (2×2×2 tables) are available, we will explore use of advanced meta-analysis models that synthesise these data to produce unbiased estimates of the accuracy of tests used in sequence and appropriately precise estimates of comparative accuracy²⁸. If we identify a connected network of test comparisons reporting at similar diagnostic thresholds, we will also explore use of network meta-analysis (NMA) techniques^29,30.

We will take a Bayesian approach to statistical analysis, computed using WinBUGS³¹ and/or JAGS³² via R. We will use vague prior distributions across all analyses and will check for sensitivity to choice of vague priors. We will make the data and code underpinning our analyses freely available on an open-source platform (e.g. GitHub).

To illustrate the meaning of summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, we will use these to calculate natural frequencies for hypothetical cohorts of 1,000 people with cirrhosis, at one or more indicative estimates of HCC prevalence, and positive and negative predictive values.

As standard methods for assessing publication bias are not recommended for diagnostic test accuracy reviews³³, we will not investigate publication bias.

Investigations of heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses

Where feasible, we will stratify all meta-analyses by size of tumour detected, as the accuracy of tests for detecting smaller, earlier tumours is of primary importance for surveillance. An alternative, depending on data availability, may be to stratify analyses by stage of HCC (e.g. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer³⁴ categories or those meeting / not meeting Milan criteria³⁵).

Where data allow, we will also use subgroup analysis and meta-regression to explore possible heterogeneity in accuracy by the following participant characteristics:

Cause of cirrhosis
Participant age
Participant sex
Liver disease severity
Comorbidity

Where possible we will distinguish between different types of ultrasound techniques. For CT imaging, where possible we will distinguish between reporting standards e.g. LI-RADS³⁶. For MRI imaging, we will distinguish between dynamic contrast-enhanced, abbreviated and noncontrast protocols and, where possible, further distinguish between reporting standards e.g. LI-RADS³⁶. Due to considerable improvements in imaging techniques during the last several decades, we will also consider dates of studies when comparing findings.

Dissemination

We will publish our results as part of NIHR Library’s monograph series and will also pursue stand-alone publication for this review. We will document any amendments to the protocol in appendices to these documents.

Study status

First reviewer screening is finished and second reviewer screening is in progress. Data extraction is also underway.

Discussion

This review aims to summarise the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of a range of HCC surveillance tests in adults with liver cirrhosis. We will synthesise evidence across the full range of possible surveillance tests, stratify the results by important patient characteristics such as aetiology of cirrhosis and size/stage of tumour where possible, and use advanced statistical synthesis methods to summarise accuracy across the full range of thresholds and to compare different tests.

Tumour size at HCC diagnosis is one of the most influential prognostic factors affecting 5-year patient survival³⁷ as smaller tumours are more amenable to treatments such as transplantation, resection, or ablation⁷. Both ultrasound³⁸ and AFP³⁹ have been shown to have a lower accuracy for identifying early HCC, compared with HCC at any stage. Despite this, the previously mentioned 2021 Cochrane review found that AFP could be more sensitive than ultrasound in detecting ‘resectable’ HCCs among the small number of studies that assessed this (65% [62% to 68%] vs 53% [38% to 67%])¹¹. Some evidence also suggests that tools such as the GALAD score, which combines AFP, DCP, AFP-L3, gender and age, may be accurate in detecting early HCC⁴⁰. Evidence is needed to compare the full range of possible tests in a consistent way to determine the optimum method of detecting early or small HCC in a surveillance setting.

We also intend to investigate how accuracy varies by different aetiologies of cirrhosis. Current guidelines recommend ultrasound with or without AFP for HCC surveillance, independent of aetiology^5–8. However, aetiology has been shown to affect the accuracy of some diagnostic tests for HCC. For example, the accuracy of AFP in patients with hepatitis may be lower than in patients with other aetiologies, as hepatitis infection can affect AFP levels⁴¹. Additionally, ultrasound quality may be inferior in those with cirrhosis caused by alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)³⁸. Where sufficient data are available, our review will compare the accuracy of tests in patients with different aetiologies to determine the most accurate test for HCC surveillance in each group. We anticipate there will be enough data to stratify by hepatitis B, hepatitis C, NAFLD and ARLD, but expect to find less evidence for rarer causes of cirrhosis (primary biliary cholangitis, haemochromatosis, autoimmune hepatitis, and Wilson's disease).

There are several challenges we may encounter while carrying out this review. Firstly, the evidence base is dominated by 2-gate studies, which can produce inflated estimates of test accuracy¹³. There are additional concerns regarding the applicability of findings from 2-gate studies, as they do not recruit participants from an HCC surveillance programme, as is the case with the majority of 1-gate studies. Secondly, we are aware that there are large disparities in the quantity of evidence for different index tests. In particular, there is a vast body of evidence on the accuracy of AFP, but much less on the accuracy of imaging tests, particularly MRI and CT⁴².

Using an appropriate reference standard for the diagnosis of HCC is challenging. Histology is a highly accurate reference standard, but requires transplantation, which only happens in a small percentage of severe cirrhosis cases⁴³, or biopsy, which is not recommended unless necessary due to risk of bleeding⁹. Therefore, we expect many studies to use imaging as a reference standard, which is more likely to misdiagnose patients, particularly missing early cases⁹. Additionally, the most accurate tests are often used to confirm the HCC diagnosis following a positive surveillance test. Therefore, histological diagnoses such as biopsy, and the most accurate imaging tests such as MRI or CT, may only be used among patients already suspected of having HCC. As cirrhosis patients with no suspicion of HCC will never receive the more accurate reference standard test, we suspect some HCC cases to be missed. Consequently, we expect most studies to be at high overall risk of bias due to the difficulties with reference standards.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

Figshare: MEDLINE search strategy.pdf, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21904866.v1⁴⁴.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA-P checklist.pdf, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22202347.v4⁴⁵.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Bertuccio P, Turati F, Carioli G, et al.: Global trends and predictions in hepatocellular carcinoma mortality. J Hepatol. 2017; 67(2): 302–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Burton A, Tataru D, Driver RJ, et al.: Primary liver cancer in the UK: incidence, incidence-based mortality, and survival by subtype, sex, and nation. JHEP Rep. 2021; 3(2): 100232. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, et al.: Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021; 7(1): 6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Sepanlou SG, Safiri S, Bisignano C, et al.: The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 5(3): 245–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Organisation For Research And Treatment Of Cancer: EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012; 56(4): 908–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. European Association for the Study of the Liver: EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018; 69(1): 182–236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, et al.: AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018; 67(1): 358–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, et al.: Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int. 2017; 11(4): 317–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Attwa MH, El-Etreby SA: Guide for diagnosis and treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. World J Hepatol. 2015; 7(12): 1632–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Pelizzaro FAO, Cardin R, Penzo B, et al.: Liquid biopsy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: where are we now? Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(9): 2274. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Colli A, Nadarevic T, Miletic D, et al.: Abdominal ultrasound and Alpha-Foetoprotein for the diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 4(4): CD013346. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Singal AG, Haaland B, Parikh ND, et al.: Comparison of a multitarget blood test to ultrasound and Alpha-Fetoprotein for Hepatocellular Carcinoma surveillance: results of a network meta-analysis. Hepatol Commun. 2022; 6(10): 2925–2936. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Vandenbroucke JP, et al.: Case-control and two-gate designs in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2005; 51(8): 1335–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al.: Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999; 282(11): 1061–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, et al.: Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140(3): 189–202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Johnson PJ, Pirrie SJ, Cox TF, et al.: The Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using a Prospectively Developed and Validated Model Based on Serological Biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014; 23(1): 144–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Chalasani NP, Porter K, Bhattacharya A, et al.: Validation of a novel multitarget blood test shows high sensitivity to detect early stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 20(1): 173–82.e7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Wang M, Devarajan K, Singal AG, et al.: The Doylestown algorithm: a test to improve the performance of AFP in the detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2016; 9(2): 172–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Rogers M, Rogers G: MEDLINE search strategy.pdf. figshare. 2023.
20. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al.: QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8): 529–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, et al.: QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2021; 174(11): 1592–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, et al.: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(10): 982–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Chu H, Cole SR: Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59(12): 1331–2; author reply 1332-3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001; 20(19): 2865–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, et al.: A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007; 8(2): 239–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Jones HE, Gatsonsis CA, Trikalinos TA, et al.: Quantifying how diagnostic test accuracy depends on threshold in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2019; 38(24): 4789–803. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Takwoingi Y, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ: Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158(7): 544–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Trikalinos TA, Hoaglin DC, Small KM, et al.: Methods for the joint meta-analysis of multiple tests. Res Synth Methods. 2014; 5(4): 294–312. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Menten J, Lesaffre E: A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15(1): 70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Nyaga VN, Aerts M, Arbyn M: ANOVA model for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 27(6): 1766–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, et al.: WinBUGS - a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput. 2000; 10(4): 325–37. Publisher Full Text
32. Plummer M: JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. 2003. Reference Source
33. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, et al.: Analysing and presenting results. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Cochrane Collaboration; 2010. Reference Source
34. Llovet JM, Brú C, Bruix J: Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis. 1999; 19(03): 329–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al.: Liver transplantation for the treatment of small Hepatocellular Carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(11): 693–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Chernyak V, Santillan CS, Papadatos D, et al.: LI-RADS^® algorithm: CT and MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018; 43(1): 111–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Sarveazad A, Agah S, Babahajian A, et al.: Predictors of 5 year survival rate in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Res Med Sci. 2019; 24: 86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Singal A, Volk ML, Waljee A, et al.: Meta-analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early-stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 30(1): 37–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Zhao YJ, Ju Q, Li GC: Tumor markers for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Mol Clin Oncol. 2013; 1(4): 593–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
40. Beudeker BJB, Boonstra A: Circulating biomarkers for early detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2020; 13: 1756284820931734. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
41. Gopal P, Yopp AC, Waljee AK, et al.: Factors that affect accuracy of α-fetoprotein test in detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 12(5): 870–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Kanwal F, Singal AG: Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: current best practice and future direction. Gastroenterology. 2019; 157(1): 54–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. Tsochatzis EA, Bosch J, Burroughs AK: Liver cirrhosis. Lancet. 2014; 383(9930): 1749–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Rogers M, Rogers G: MEDLINE search strategy.pdf. figshare. 2023. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21904866.v1
45. Sadler L: PRISMA-P checklist. figshare. Figure, 2023. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22202347.v2

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 May 2023

Author details Author details

Libby Sadler
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Hayley Jones
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Penny Whiting
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Morwenna Rogers
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Kelsey Watt
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Matthew Cramp
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Stephen Ryder
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Ken Stein
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Nicky Welton
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Felicity Oppe
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

John Bell
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Gabriel Rogers
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (project reference NIHR134670).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 02 May 2024, 3:23

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13409.2

version 1

Published: 12 May 2023, 3:23

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13409.1

© 2024 Sadler L et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

443

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Sadler L, Jones H, Whiting P et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with cirrhosis: a systematic review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2024, 3:23 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13409.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 02 May 2024

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 14 Jun 2024

Ramesh P Arasaradnam, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, UK; University of Leicester, Leicester, England, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14733.r31662

I believe the authors have addressed ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 12 May 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 19 Sep 2023

Michael Pavlides, University of Oxford, London, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14541.r30210

This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of index tests used as surveillance tests for HCC in people living with liver cirrhosis. This is an important area of research and as the authors point to in their paper, significant efforts have already been made to review and summarise the available evidence. The planned review described in this protocol will extend the scope of index tests that are being examined.

There are a couple of points that are worth considering further. Firstly, the authors want to examine whether index tests used in surveillance for HCC improve the diagnosis of HCC. However, the effectiveness of screening / surveillance programmes is better judged on whether such programmes improve mortality. The authors may therefore want to consider revising the primary objective to be to review the evidence on whether index tests used as part of surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis improve survival in these patients, with the diagnostic accuracy for HCC as a secondary objective.

In the discussion, the authors describe nicely the challenges they may encounter during this work, including the fact that the evidence base is dominated by 2-gate studies. It would therefore be very informative for the medical and research community if this work could also summarise what level of evidence exists to support the use of each index test. It would be very useful to know if there are any randomised controlled trials and also if there are any studies with prospective evaluation of index tests in longitudinal studies (studies where surveillance populations without HCC are followed up, index tests are measured in real time and if they are above a predefined threshold are then followed up by a reference standard test.

On a related point, it may be worth providing some further clarifications about the 1-gate studies that will be included. In the current protocol these are described as "cross sectional". Does this then mean that RCT and prospective longitudinal studies as the ones described above will not be included?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Hepatology, HCC, MRI, cirrhosis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 02 May 2024

Gabriel Rogers, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

02 May 2024

Author Response
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.
- This paper
... Continue reading
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of index tests used as surveillance tests for HCC in people living with liver cirrhosis. This is an important area of research and as the authors point to in their paper, significant efforts have already been made to review and summarise the available evidence. The planned review described in this protocol will extend the scope of index tests that are being examined.

There are a couple of points that are worth considering further. Firstly, the authors want to examine whether index tests used in surveillance for HCC improve the diagnosis of HCC. However, the effectiveness of screening / surveillance programmes is better judged on whether such programmes improve mortality. The authors may therefore want to consider revising the primary objective to be to review the evidence on whether index tests used as part of surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis improve survival in these patients, with the diagnostic accuracy for HCC as a secondary objective.

Our manuscript notes that this review is ‘part of a larger project on the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for HCC among people with cirrhosis’. As such, the outputs of the diagnostic test accuracy review will feed into other work packages that seek to quantify the long-term benefits and harms of different approaches to surveillance, including impact on life expectancy. We have added a line to our abstract to emphasise this further.

In the discussion, the authors describe nicely the challenges they may encounter during this work, including the fact that the evidence base is dominated by 2-gate studies. It would therefore be very informative for the medical and research community if this work could also summarise what level of evidence exists to support the use of each index test. It would be very useful to know if there are any randomised controlled trials and also if there are any studies with prospective evaluation of index tests in longitudinal studies (studies where surveillance populations without HCC are followed up, index tests are measured in real time and if they are above a predefined threshold are then followed up by a reference standard test.

This will be partly addressed by a separate work package in our project, that looks at observational studies comparing HCCs found in surveillance programmes with those coming to attention in other ways. A small proportion of these are prospective in design, though most simply take cases found in different ways and compare them retrospectively.

On a related point, it may be worth providing some further clarifications about the 1-gate studies that will be included. In the current protocol these are described as "cross sectional". Does this then mean that RCT and prospective longitudinal studies as the ones described above will not be included?

Thanks for picking this ambiguity up. We have edited our manuscript to clarify that 1-gate studies can include ‘prospective longitudinal studies’ (which would include RCTs, if they present diagnostic accuracy data – for the record, 2 meet our criteria: Kudo et al., Liver cancer 2019;8(4):271-80 and Pocha et al., APT 2013;38(3):303-12).
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of index tests used as surveillance tests for HCC in people living with liver cirrhosis. This is an important area of research and as the authors point to in their paper, significant efforts have already been made to review and summarise the available evidence. The planned review described in this protocol will extend the scope of index tests that are being examined.

There are a couple of points that are worth considering further. Firstly, the authors want to examine whether index tests used in surveillance for HCC improve the diagnosis of HCC. However, the effectiveness of screening / surveillance programmes is better judged on whether such programmes improve mortality. The authors may therefore want to consider revising the primary objective to be to review the evidence on whether index tests used as part of surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis improve survival in these patients, with the diagnostic accuracy for HCC as a secondary objective.

Our manuscript notes that this review is ‘part of a larger project on the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for HCC among people with cirrhosis’. As such, the outputs of the diagnostic test accuracy review will feed into other work packages that seek to quantify the long-term benefits and harms of different approaches to surveillance, including impact on life expectancy. We have added a line to our abstract to emphasise this further.

In the discussion, the authors describe nicely the challenges they may encounter during this work, including the fact that the evidence base is dominated by 2-gate studies. It would therefore be very informative for the medical and research community if this work could also summarise what level of evidence exists to support the use of each index test. It would be very useful to know if there are any randomised controlled trials and also if there are any studies with prospective evaluation of index tests in longitudinal studies (studies where surveillance populations without HCC are followed up, index tests are measured in real time and if they are above a predefined threshold are then followed up by a reference standard test.

This will be partly addressed by a separate work package in our project, that looks at observational studies comparing HCCs found in surveillance programmes with those coming to attention in other ways. A small proportion of these are prospective in design, though most simply take cases found in different ways and compare them retrospectively.

On a related point, it may be worth providing some further clarifications about the 1-gate studies that will be included. In the current protocol these are described as "cross sectional". Does this then mean that RCT and prospective longitudinal studies as the ones described above will not be included?

Thanks for picking this ambiguity up. We have edited our manuscript to clarify that 1-gate studies can include ‘prospective longitudinal studies’ (which would include RCTs, if they present diagnostic accuracy data – for the record, 2 meet our criteria: Kudo et al., Liver cancer 2019;8(4):271-80 and Pocha et al., APT 2013;38(3):303-12).
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 02 May 2024

Gabriel Rogers, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

02 May 2024

Author Response
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.
- This paper
... Continue reading
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of index tests used as surveillance tests for HCC in people living with liver cirrhosis. This is an important area of research and as the authors point to in their paper, significant efforts have already been made to review and summarise the available evidence. The planned review described in this protocol will extend the scope of index tests that are being examined.

There are a couple of points that are worth considering further. Firstly, the authors want to examine whether index tests used in surveillance for HCC improve the diagnosis of HCC. However, the effectiveness of screening / surveillance programmes is better judged on whether such programmes improve mortality. The authors may therefore want to consider revising the primary objective to be to review the evidence on whether index tests used as part of surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis improve survival in these patients, with the diagnostic accuracy for HCC as a secondary objective.

Our manuscript notes that this review is ‘part of a larger project on the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for HCC among people with cirrhosis’. As such, the outputs of the diagnostic test accuracy review will feed into other work packages that seek to quantify the long-term benefits and harms of different approaches to surveillance, including impact on life expectancy. We have added a line to our abstract to emphasise this further.

In the discussion, the authors describe nicely the challenges they may encounter during this work, including the fact that the evidence base is dominated by 2-gate studies. It would therefore be very informative for the medical and research community if this work could also summarise what level of evidence exists to support the use of each index test. It would be very useful to know if there are any randomised controlled trials and also if there are any studies with prospective evaluation of index tests in longitudinal studies (studies where surveillance populations without HCC are followed up, index tests are measured in real time and if they are above a predefined threshold are then followed up by a reference standard test.

This will be partly addressed by a separate work package in our project, that looks at observational studies comparing HCCs found in surveillance programmes with those coming to attention in other ways. A small proportion of these are prospective in design, though most simply take cases found in different ways and compare them retrospectively.

On a related point, it may be worth providing some further clarifications about the 1-gate studies that will be included. In the current protocol these are described as "cross sectional". Does this then mean that RCT and prospective longitudinal studies as the ones described above will not be included?

Thanks for picking this ambiguity up. We have edited our manuscript to clarify that 1-gate studies can include ‘prospective longitudinal studies’ (which would include RCTs, if they present diagnostic accuracy data – for the record, 2 meet our criteria: Kudo et al., Liver cancer 2019;8(4):271-80 and Pocha et al., APT 2013;38(3):303-12).
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of index tests used as surveillance tests for HCC in people living with liver cirrhosis. This is an important area of research and as the authors point to in their paper, significant efforts have already been made to review and summarise the available evidence. The planned review described in this protocol will extend the scope of index tests that are being examined.

There are a couple of points that are worth considering further. Firstly, the authors want to examine whether index tests used in surveillance for HCC improve the diagnosis of HCC. However, the effectiveness of screening / surveillance programmes is better judged on whether such programmes improve mortality. The authors may therefore want to consider revising the primary objective to be to review the evidence on whether index tests used as part of surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis improve survival in these patients, with the diagnostic accuracy for HCC as a secondary objective.

Our manuscript notes that this review is ‘part of a larger project on the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for HCC among people with cirrhosis’. As such, the outputs of the diagnostic test accuracy review will feed into other work packages that seek to quantify the long-term benefits and harms of different approaches to surveillance, including impact on life expectancy. We have added a line to our abstract to emphasise this further.

In the discussion, the authors describe nicely the challenges they may encounter during this work, including the fact that the evidence base is dominated by 2-gate studies. It would therefore be very informative for the medical and research community if this work could also summarise what level of evidence exists to support the use of each index test. It would be very useful to know if there are any randomised controlled trials and also if there are any studies with prospective evaluation of index tests in longitudinal studies (studies where surveillance populations without HCC are followed up, index tests are measured in real time and if they are above a predefined threshold are then followed up by a reference standard test.

This will be partly addressed by a separate work package in our project, that looks at observational studies comparing HCCs found in surveillance programmes with those coming to attention in other ways. A small proportion of these are prospective in design, though most simply take cases found in different ways and compare them retrospectively.

On a related point, it may be worth providing some further clarifications about the 1-gate studies that will be included. In the current protocol these are described as "cross sectional". Does this then mean that RCT and prospective longitudinal studies as the ones described above will not be included?

Thanks for picking this ambiguity up. We have edited our manuscript to clarify that 1-gate studies can include ‘prospective longitudinal studies’ (which would include RCTs, if they present diagnostic accuracy data – for the record, 2 meet our criteria: Kudo et al., Liver cancer 2019;8(4):271-80 and Pocha et al., APT 2013;38(3):303-12).
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 15 Sep 2023

Ramesh P Arasaradnam, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, UK; University of Leicester, Leicester, England, UK

Ayman Bannaga, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.14541.r29471

This is an important clinical area to consider.

Some comments to consider:

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most

This is an important clinical area to consider.

Some comments to consider:

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most common.
Lay summary can be simplified further – it still is a difficult read (47 Flesch score).
Pg 3 – term liquid biopsy; this would extend beyond miRNA but even urine, or plasma for Septin-9 for example. Would these other marker also be assessed as part of this proposal?
Pg 4 – would be helpful to clarify which genomic markers the authors would be considering and criteria for choice.
Will the authors consider mortality data – AFP would appear to have some benefit in terms of prognosis and worth comparing with proposed genomic markers?
Would be helpful to have some definitions of proposed index and standard tests as increasingly histological diagnosis is not available and radiological diagnosis is the reference standard.
Remains unclear of how this proposed review adds to the detailed Cochrane review of 2021 – herein the authors propose to widen the inclusion criteria which will involve an additional 292 papers that were initially excluded in the Cochrane review. Please can the authors provide greater detail and justification for this.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Biomarker discovery and Implementation

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 02 May 2024

Gabriel Rogers, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

02 May 2024

Author Response
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.
- Pg 3
... Continue reading
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most common.

It is only in the plain-English summary that we refer to ‘liver cancer’; we think this is an acceptable simplification, in this context. In the main text, we exclusively define the target of interest as HCC. Is that okay?

Lay summary can be simplified further – it still is a difficult read (47 Flesch score).

Thanks for the prompt. We have done what we can, and improved the Flesch score to 67.2 (grade <7)

Pg 3 – term liquid biopsy; this would extend beyond miRNA but even urine, or plasma for Septin-9 for example. Would these other marker also be assessed as part of this proposal?

We have removed the reference to ‘liquid biopsy’ as we can see that it introduces ambiguity. The revised text refers to ‘genomic biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs’.

Pg 4 – would be helpful to clarify which genomic markers the authors would be considering and criteria for choice.

We state that we will consider all genomic biomarkers, in the first instance. We have clarified that we will only narrow down if we find a wide range of targets addressed in single studies. Under those circumstances, our criteria for choice are ‘those that our clinical advisers believe are most feasible to adopt in the NHS and/or those that have been studied in multiple cohorts’.

Will the authors consider mortality data – AFP would appear to have some benefit in terms of prognosis and worth comparing with proposed genomic markers?

No; this is beyond the scope of our review, which focuses only on diagnostic accuracy. We have emphasised, elsewhere, that the review is part of a wider project that will, inter alia, seek to assess the impact of diagnosis on the full pathway, including overall survival. However, we do not have a work package that looks at prognostic value of biomarkers, in themselves.

Would be helpful to have some definitions of proposed index and standard tests as increasingly histological diagnosis is not available and radiological diagnosis is the reference standard.

We define both index tests and reference standards under ‘Criteria for considering studies for this review’. We have clarified that our preference for explant pathology, histology, and imaging with defined follow-up as reference standards is because we consider these are most likely to find HCC when it is present.

Remains unclear of how this proposed review adds to the detailed Cochrane review of 2021 – herein the authors propose to widen the inclusion criteria which will involve an additional 292 papers that were initially excluded in the Cochrane review. Please can the authors provide greater detail and justification for this.

We state in ‘Rationale’ that our review adds to the 2021 Cochrane review by considering a wider range of tests, and including more extensive stratification (especially accounting for tumour size) and synthesis. Our literature search retrieves many more than the 292 papers excluded by the Cochrane review (in fact, we have screened over 10,000); however, we gave special attention to these 292, as we judged that they have a high probability of being relevant to our review despite not meeting Cochrane’s eligibility criteria.
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most common.

It is only in the plain-English summary that we refer to ‘liver cancer’; we think this is an acceptable simplification, in this context. In the main text, we exclusively define the target of interest as HCC. Is that okay?

Lay summary can be simplified further – it still is a difficult read (47 Flesch score).

Thanks for the prompt. We have done what we can, and improved the Flesch score to 67.2 (grade <7)

Pg 3 – term liquid biopsy; this would extend beyond miRNA but even urine, or plasma for Septin-9 for example. Would these other marker also be assessed as part of this proposal?

We have removed the reference to ‘liquid biopsy’ as we can see that it introduces ambiguity. The revised text refers to ‘genomic biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs’.

Pg 4 – would be helpful to clarify which genomic markers the authors would be considering and criteria for choice.

We state that we will consider all genomic biomarkers, in the first instance. We have clarified that we will only narrow down if we find a wide range of targets addressed in single studies. Under those circumstances, our criteria for choice are ‘those that our clinical advisers believe are most feasible to adopt in the NHS and/or those that have been studied in multiple cohorts’.

Will the authors consider mortality data – AFP would appear to have some benefit in terms of prognosis and worth comparing with proposed genomic markers?

No; this is beyond the scope of our review, which focuses only on diagnostic accuracy. We have emphasised, elsewhere, that the review is part of a wider project that will, inter alia, seek to assess the impact of diagnosis on the full pathway, including overall survival. However, we do not have a work package that looks at prognostic value of biomarkers, in themselves.

Would be helpful to have some definitions of proposed index and standard tests as increasingly histological diagnosis is not available and radiological diagnosis is the reference standard.

We define both index tests and reference standards under ‘Criteria for considering studies for this review’. We have clarified that our preference for explant pathology, histology, and imaging with defined follow-up as reference standards is because we consider these are most likely to find HCC when it is present.

Remains unclear of how this proposed review adds to the detailed Cochrane review of 2021 – herein the authors propose to widen the inclusion criteria which will involve an additional 292 papers that were initially excluded in the Cochrane review. Please can the authors provide greater detail and justification for this.

We state in ‘Rationale’ that our review adds to the 2021 Cochrane review by considering a wider range of tests, and including more extensive stratification (especially accounting for tumour size) and synthesis. Our literature search retrieves many more than the 292 papers excluded by the Cochrane review (in fact, we have screened over 10,000); however, we gave special attention to these 292, as we judged that they have a high probability of being relevant to our review despite not meeting Cochrane’s eligibility criteria.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 02 May 2024

Gabriel Rogers, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

02 May 2024

Author Response
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.
- Pg 3
... Continue reading
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most common.

It is only in the plain-English summary that we refer to ‘liver cancer’; we think this is an acceptable simplification, in this context. In the main text, we exclusively define the target of interest as HCC. Is that okay?

Lay summary can be simplified further – it still is a difficult read (47 Flesch score).

Thanks for the prompt. We have done what we can, and improved the Flesch score to 67.2 (grade <7)

Pg 3 – term liquid biopsy; this would extend beyond miRNA but even urine, or plasma for Septin-9 for example. Would these other marker also be assessed as part of this proposal?

We have removed the reference to ‘liquid biopsy’ as we can see that it introduces ambiguity. The revised text refers to ‘genomic biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs’.

Pg 4 – would be helpful to clarify which genomic markers the authors would be considering and criteria for choice.

We state that we will consider all genomic biomarkers, in the first instance. We have clarified that we will only narrow down if we find a wide range of targets addressed in single studies. Under those circumstances, our criteria for choice are ‘those that our clinical advisers believe are most feasible to adopt in the NHS and/or those that have been studied in multiple cohorts’.

Will the authors consider mortality data – AFP would appear to have some benefit in terms of prognosis and worth comparing with proposed genomic markers?

No; this is beyond the scope of our review, which focuses only on diagnostic accuracy. We have emphasised, elsewhere, that the review is part of a wider project that will, inter alia, seek to assess the impact of diagnosis on the full pathway, including overall survival. However, we do not have a work package that looks at prognostic value of biomarkers, in themselves.

Would be helpful to have some definitions of proposed index and standard tests as increasingly histological diagnosis is not available and radiological diagnosis is the reference standard.

We define both index tests and reference standards under ‘Criteria for considering studies for this review’. We have clarified that our preference for explant pathology, histology, and imaging with defined follow-up as reference standards is because we consider these are most likely to find HCC when it is present.

Remains unclear of how this proposed review adds to the detailed Cochrane review of 2021 – herein the authors propose to widen the inclusion criteria which will involve an additional 292 papers that were initially excluded in the Cochrane review. Please can the authors provide greater detail and justification for this.

We state in ‘Rationale’ that our review adds to the 2021 Cochrane review by considering a wider range of tests, and including more extensive stratification (especially accounting for tumour size) and synthesis. Our literature search retrieves many more than the 292 papers excluded by the Cochrane review (in fact, we have screened over 10,000); however, we gave special attention to these 292, as we judged that they have a high probability of being relevant to our review despite not meeting Cochrane’s eligibility criteria.
Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most common.

It is only in the plain-English summary that we refer to ‘liver cancer’; we think this is an acceptable simplification, in this context. In the main text, we exclusively define the target of interest as HCC. Is that okay?

Lay summary can be simplified further – it still is a difficult read (47 Flesch score).

Thanks for the prompt. We have done what we can, and improved the Flesch score to 67.2 (grade <7)

Pg 3 – term liquid biopsy; this would extend beyond miRNA but even urine, or plasma for Septin-9 for example. Would these other marker also be assessed as part of this proposal?

We have removed the reference to ‘liquid biopsy’ as we can see that it introduces ambiguity. The revised text refers to ‘genomic biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs’.

Pg 4 – would be helpful to clarify which genomic markers the authors would be considering and criteria for choice.

We state that we will consider all genomic biomarkers, in the first instance. We have clarified that we will only narrow down if we find a wide range of targets addressed in single studies. Under those circumstances, our criteria for choice are ‘those that our clinical advisers believe are most feasible to adopt in the NHS and/or those that have been studied in multiple cohorts’.

Will the authors consider mortality data – AFP would appear to have some benefit in terms of prognosis and worth comparing with proposed genomic markers?

No; this is beyond the scope of our review, which focuses only on diagnostic accuracy. We have emphasised, elsewhere, that the review is part of a wider project that will, inter alia, seek to assess the impact of diagnosis on the full pathway, including overall survival. However, we do not have a work package that looks at prognostic value of biomarkers, in themselves.

Would be helpful to have some definitions of proposed index and standard tests as increasingly histological diagnosis is not available and radiological diagnosis is the reference standard.

We define both index tests and reference standards under ‘Criteria for considering studies for this review’. We have clarified that our preference for explant pathology, histology, and imaging with defined follow-up as reference standards is because we consider these are most likely to find HCC when it is present.

Remains unclear of how this proposed review adds to the detailed Cochrane review of 2021 – herein the authors propose to widen the inclusion criteria which will involve an additional 292 papers that were initially excluded in the Cochrane review. Please can the authors provide greater detail and justification for this.

We state in ‘Rationale’ that our review adds to the 2021 Cochrane review by considering a wider range of tests, and including more extensive stratification (especially accounting for tumour size) and synthesis. Our literature search retrieves many more than the 292 papers excluded by the Cochrane review (in fact, we have screened over 10,000); however, we gave special attention to these 292, as we judged that they have a high probability of being relevant to our review despite not meeting Cochrane’s eligibility criteria.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 May 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 02 May 24	read
Version 1 12 May 23	read	read

Ramesh P Arasaradnam, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Ayman Bannaga, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Michael Pavlides, University of Oxford, London, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

14 Jun 2024 | for Version 2

Ramesh P Arasaradnam, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, UK; University of Leicester, Leicester, England, UK

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I believe the authors have addressed the comments satisfactorily
Nil else to add.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Biomarker discovery and Implementation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

19 Views

19 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Michael Pavlides, University of Oxford, London, UK

19 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Hepatology, HCC, MRI, cirrhosis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

02 May 2024

Gabriel Rogers, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of index tests used as surveillance tests for HCC in people living with liver cirrhosis. This is an important area of research and as the authors point to in their paper, significant efforts have already been made to review and summarise the available evidence. The planned review described in this protocol will extend the scope of index tests that are being examined.
There are a couple of points that are worth considering further. Firstly, the authors want to examine whether index tests used in surveillance for HCC improve the diagnosis of HCC. However, the effectiveness of screening / surveillance programmes is better judged on whether such programmes improve mortality. The authors may therefore want to consider revising the primary objective to be to review the evidence on whether index tests used as part of surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis improve survival in these patients, with the diagnostic accuracy for HCC as a secondary objective.

Our manuscript notes that this review is ‘part of a larger project on the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for HCC among people with cirrhosis’. As such, the outputs of the diagnostic test accuracy review will feed into other work packages that seek to quantify the long-term benefits and harms of different approaches to surveillance, including impact on life expectancy. We have added a line to our abstract to emphasise this further.

In the discussion, the authors describe nicely the challenges they may encounter during this work, including the fact that the evidence base is dominated by 2-gate studies. It would therefore be very informative for the medical and research community if this work could also summarise what level of evidence exists to support the use of each index test. It would be very useful to know if there are any randomised controlled trials and also if there are any studies with prospective evaluation of index tests in longitudinal studies (studies where surveillance populations without HCC are followed up, index tests are measured in real time and if they are above a predefined threshold are then followed up by a reference standard test.

This will be partly addressed by a separate work package in our project, that looks at observational studies comparing HCCs found in surveillance programmes with those coming to attention in other ways. A small proportion of these are prospective in design, though most simply take cases found in different ways and compare them retrospectively.

On a related point, it may be worth providing some further clarifications about the 1-gate studies that will be included. In the current protocol these are described as "cross sectional". Does this then mean that RCT and prospective longitudinal studies as the ones described above will not be included?

Thanks for picking this ambiguity up. We have edited our manuscript to clarify that 1-gate studies can include ‘prospective longitudinal studies’ (which would include RCTs, if they present diagnostic accuracy data – for the record, 2 meet our criteria: Kudo et al., Liver cancer 2019;8(4):271-80 and Pocha et al., APT 2013;38(3):303-12).

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

32 Views

15 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Ramesh P Arasaradnam, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, UK; University of Leicester, Leicester, England, UK

Ayman Bannaga, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, UK

32 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

This is an important clinical area to consider.

Some comments to consider:

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most common.
Lay summary can be simplified further – it still is a difficult read (47 Flesch score).
Pg 3 – term liquid biopsy; this would extend beyond miRNA but even urine, or plasma for Septin-9 for example. Would these other marker also be assessed as part of this proposal?
Pg 4 – would be helpful to clarify which genomic markers the authors would be considering and criteria for choice.
Will the authors consider mortality data – AFP would appear to have some benefit in terms of prognosis and worth comparing with proposed genomic markers?
Would be helpful to have some definitions of proposed index and standard tests as increasingly histological diagnosis is not available and radiological diagnosis is the reference standard.
Remains unclear of how this proposed review adds to the detailed Cochrane review of 2021 – herein the authors propose to widen the inclusion criteria which will involve an additional 292 papers that were initially excluded in the Cochrane review. Please can the authors provide greater detail and justification for this.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Biomarker discovery and Implementation

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

02 May 2024

Gabriel Rogers, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and the points you make. We have responded to these below and updated our paper where indicated.

Pg 3 and subsequently, helpful to stick with terminology of HCC (90% of primary liver cancer) accepting that secondaries are most common.

It is only in the plain-English summary that we refer to ‘liver cancer’; we think this is an acceptable simplification, in this context. In the main text, we exclusively define the target of interest as HCC. Is that okay?

Lay summary can be simplified further – it still is a difficult read (47 Flesch score).

Thanks for the prompt. We have done what we can, and improved the Flesch score to 67.2 (grade <7)

Pg 3 – term liquid biopsy; this would extend beyond miRNA but even urine, or plasma for Septin-9 for example. Would these other marker also be assessed as part of this proposal?

We have removed the reference to ‘liquid biopsy’ as we can see that it introduces ambiguity. The revised text refers to ‘genomic biomarkers such as circulating microRNAs’.

Pg 4 – would be helpful to clarify which genomic markers the authors would be considering and criteria for choice.

We state that we will consider all genomic biomarkers, in the first instance. We have clarified that we will only narrow down if we find a wide range of targets addressed in single studies. Under those circumstances, our criteria for choice are ‘those that our clinical advisers believe are most feasible to adopt in the NHS and/or those that have been studied in multiple cohorts’.

Will the authors consider mortality data – AFP would appear to have some benefit in terms of prognosis and worth comparing with proposed genomic markers?

No; this is beyond the scope of our review, which focuses only on diagnostic accuracy. We have emphasised, elsewhere, that the review is part of a wider project that will, inter alia, seek to assess the impact of diagnosis on the full pathway, including overall survival. However, we do not have a work package that looks at prognostic value of biomarkers, in themselves.

Would be helpful to have some definitions of proposed index and standard tests as increasingly histological diagnosis is not available and radiological diagnosis is the reference standard.

We define both index tests and reference standards under ‘Criteria for considering studies for this review’. We have clarified that our preference for explant pathology, histology, and imaging with defined follow-up as reference standards is because we consider these are most likely to find HCC when it is present.

Remains unclear of how this proposed review adds to the detailed Cochrane review of 2021 – herein the authors propose to widen the inclusion criteria which will involve an additional 292 papers that were initially excluded in the Cochrane review. Please can the authors provide greater detail and justification for this.

We state in ‘Rationale’ that our review adds to the 2021 Cochrane review by considering a wider range of tests, and including more extensive stratification (especially accounting for tumour size) and synthesis. Our literature search retrieves many more than the 292 papers excluded by the Cochrane review (in fact, we have screened over 10,000); however, we gave special attention to these 292, as we judged that they have a high probability of being relevant to our review despite not meeting Cochrane’s eligibility criteria.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Bertuccio P, Turati F, Carioli G, et al.: Global trends and predictions in hepatocellular carcinoma mortality. J Hepatol. 2017; 67(2): 302–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Burton A, Tataru D, Driver RJ, et al.: Primary liver cancer in the UK: incidence, incidence-based mortality, and survival by subtype, sex, and nation. JHEP Rep. 2021; 3(2): 100232. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, et al.: Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021; 7(1): 6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Sepanlou SG, Safiri S, Bisignano C, et al.: The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 5(3): 245–66. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Organisation For Research And Treatment Of Cancer: EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012; 56(4): 908–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. European Association for the Study of the Liver: EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018; 69(1): 182–236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, et al.: AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2018; 67(1): 358–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, et al.: Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int. 2017; 11(4): 317–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Attwa MH, El-Etreby SA: Guide for diagnosis and treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. World J Hepatol. 2015; 7(12): 1632–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Pelizzaro FAO, Cardin R, Penzo B, et al.: Liquid biopsy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: where are we now? Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(9): 2274. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Colli A, Nadarevic T, Miletic D, et al.: Abdominal ultrasound and Alpha-Foetoprotein for the diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 4(4): CD013346. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Singal AG, Haaland B, Parikh ND, et al.: Comparison of a multitarget blood test to ultrasound and Alpha-Fetoprotein for Hepatocellular Carcinoma surveillance: results of a network meta-analysis. Hepatol Commun. 2022; 6(10): 2925–2936. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Vandenbroucke JP, et al.: Case-control and two-gate designs in diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2005; 51(8): 1335–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al.: Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999; 282(11): 1061–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, et al.: Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140(3): 189–202. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Johnson PJ, Pirrie SJ, Cox TF, et al.: The Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using a Prospectively Developed and Validated Model Based on Serological Biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014; 23(1): 144–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Chalasani NP, Porter K, Bhattacharya A, et al.: Validation of a novel multitarget blood test shows high sensitivity to detect early stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 20(1): 173–82.e7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Wang M, Devarajan K, Singal AG, et al.: The Doylestown algorithm: a test to improve the performance of AFP in the detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2016; 9(2): 172–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Rogers M, Rogers G: MEDLINE search strategy.pdf. figshare. 2023.

[20] 20. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al.: QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8): 529–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, et al.: QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2021; 174(11): 1592–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, et al.: Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(10): 982–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Chu H, Cole SR: Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59(12): 1331–2; author reply 1332-3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA: A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001; 20(19): 2865–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, et al.: A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007; 8(2): 239–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Jones HE, Gatsonsis CA, Trikalinos TA, et al.: Quantifying how diagnostic test accuracy depends on threshold in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2019; 38(24): 4789–803. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Takwoingi Y, Leeflang MMG, Deeks JJ: Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158(7): 544–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Trikalinos TA, Hoaglin DC, Small KM, et al.: Methods for the joint meta-analysis of multiple tests. Res Synth Methods. 2014; 5(4): 294–312. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Menten J, Lesaffre E: A general framework for comparative Bayesian meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15(1): 70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Nyaga VN, Aerts M, Arbyn M: ANOVA model for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 27(6): 1766–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, et al.: WinBUGS - a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput. 2000; 10(4): 325–37. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Plummer M: JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. 2003. Reference Source

[33] 33. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, et al.: Analysing and presenting results. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Cochrane Collaboration; 2010. Reference Source

[34] 34. Llovet JM, Brú C, Bruix J: Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis. 1999; 19(03): 329–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al.: Liver transplantation for the treatment of small Hepatocellular Carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(11): 693–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Chernyak V, Santillan CS, Papadatos D, et al.: LI-RADS^® algorithm: CT and MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018; 43(1): 111–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Sarveazad A, Agah S, Babahajian A, et al.: Predictors of 5 year survival rate in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Res Med Sci. 2019; 24: 86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Singal A, Volk ML, Waljee A, et al.: Meta-analysis: surveillance with ultrasound for early-stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009; 30(1): 37–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Zhao YJ, Ju Q, Li GC: Tumor markers for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Mol Clin Oncol. 2013; 1(4): 593–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[40] 40. Beudeker BJB, Boonstra A: Circulating biomarkers for early detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2020; 13: 1756284820931734. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[41] 41. Gopal P, Yopp AC, Waljee AK, et al.: Factors that affect accuracy of α-fetoprotein test in detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 12(5): 870–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Kanwal F, Singal AG: Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: current best practice and future direction. Gastroenterology. 2019; 157(1): 54–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] 43. Tsochatzis EA, Bosch J, Burroughs AK: Liver cirrhosis. Lancet. 2014; 383(9930): 1749–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Rogers M, Rogers G: MEDLINE search strategy.pdf. figshare. 2023. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21904866.v1

[45] 45. Sadler L: PRISMA-P checklist. figshare. Figure, 2023. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22202347.v2

Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with cirrhosis: a systematic review protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

PROSPERO registration

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Background

Target condition being diagnosed

Surveillance tests

Clinical pathway

Rationale

Objectives

Secondary objectives

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Information sources

Selection of studies

Data collection and analysis

Dissemination

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you an NIHR-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with cirrhosis: a systematic review protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

PROSPERO registration

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Background

Target condition being diagnosed

Surveillance tests

Clinical pathway

Rationale

Objectives

Secondary objectives

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Information sources

Selection of studies

Data collection and analysis

Dissemination

Study status

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you an NIHR-funded researcher?

Thank you!