TY - JOUR
T1 - Conceptual Model for the Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Continuum
T2 - Current Status and Research Agenda
AU - Singal, Amit G.
AU - Lok, Anna S.
AU - Feng, Ziding
AU - Kanwal, Fasiha
AU - Parikh, Neehar D.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding This study was conducted with support from National Institutes of Health Grant Nos. U01 CA230694 (to A.S.), U01 CA230669 (to A.L.), U01 CA230997 (to F.K.), R01 CA222900 (to A.S.), and R01 CA212008 (to A.S.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funding agency had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation of the manuscript. Conflicts of Interest These authors disclose the following: Amit G. Singal has served as a consultant for Wako Diagnostics, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, Roche, GRAIL, Genentech, Bayer, Eisai, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, BMS, and TARGET Pharmasolutions. Anna S. Lok has served on the advisory board of Epigenomics. Neehar D. Parikh has served as a consultant for Bristol Myers-Squibb, Exact Sciences, Eli Lilly, an Freenome; served on advisory boards of Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, Exelexis, and Wako/Fujifilm; and received research funding from Bayer, Target Pharmasolutions, Exact Sciences, and Glycotest. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts.
Funding Information:
Funding This study was conducted with support from National Institutes of Health Grant Nos. U01 CA230694 (to A.S.), U01 CA230669 (to A.L.), U01 CA230997 (to F.K.), R01 CA222900 (to A.S.), and R01 CA212008 (to A.S.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funding agency had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation of the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 AGA Institute
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to have a dismal prognosis, with 5-year survival below 20%. This poor prognosis can be in part attributed to failures along the cancer screening process continuum such as underuse of screening in at risk patients and appropriate treatments for patients with HCC. Better understanding these process failures, and how they compare to those seen in other cancer types, can help inform potential intervention targets and strategies to reduce HCC-related mortality. Herein, we outline a conceptual model with several discrete steps in the HCC screening process continuum including risk assessment, screening initiation, follow-up of screening results, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment evaluation. The conceptual model illustrates how each step in the screening process is prone to delays or failure, resulting in worse outcomes such as late stage diagnosis or poor survival, and how factors at the patient, provider, and health care system levels can contribute to these failures. We compare cancer screening processes for HCC with those employed in breast and colorectal cancer screening to identify opportunities for improvement. The Translational Liver Cancer consortium was recently established by the National Cancer Institute with the goal of improving early detection of HCC. Studies designed to address failures in the HCC screening process continuum will help accomplish this goal.
AB - Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to have a dismal prognosis, with 5-year survival below 20%. This poor prognosis can be in part attributed to failures along the cancer screening process continuum such as underuse of screening in at risk patients and appropriate treatments for patients with HCC. Better understanding these process failures, and how they compare to those seen in other cancer types, can help inform potential intervention targets and strategies to reduce HCC-related mortality. Herein, we outline a conceptual model with several discrete steps in the HCC screening process continuum including risk assessment, screening initiation, follow-up of screening results, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment evaluation. The conceptual model illustrates how each step in the screening process is prone to delays or failure, resulting in worse outcomes such as late stage diagnosis or poor survival, and how factors at the patient, provider, and health care system levels can contribute to these failures. We compare cancer screening processes for HCC with those employed in breast and colorectal cancer screening to identify opportunities for improvement. The Translational Liver Cancer consortium was recently established by the National Cancer Institute with the goal of improving early detection of HCC. Studies designed to address failures in the HCC screening process continuum will help accomplish this goal.
KW - Diagnosis
KW - Liver Cancer
KW - Screening Process
KW - Surveillance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100428665&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100428665&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.036
DO - 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.09.036
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32961340
AN - SCOPUS:85100428665
SN - 1542-3565
VL - 20
SP - 9
EP - 18
JO - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
JF - Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
IS - 1
ER -