ReviewJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2019
How to improve HCC surveillance outcomes.
Review in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in the Therapeutic Landscape of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Strategies and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2026Review
- Article
- A Patient Charter to Improve Care for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Review
- Hepatocellular carcinoma: State of the art diagnostic imaging.World journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Exosomes in Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Biomarkers for hepatocellular cancer.World journal of hepatology · 2020Review
- Assessment of liver cancer biomarkers.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2020Review
- The changing face of hepatology.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Outside of expert centres, surveillance programmes for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are not well executed. There are deficiencies in every stage of the process. Overcoming these obstacles is the most important method for improving surveillance. However, even if these obstacles were overcome, there would still be room for improvement. Assessing who is at risk of developing HCC remains incompletely validated. At present, risk scores have been developed for different causes of liver disease, but scores developed in different parts of the world for the same disease do not always agree. Furthermore, most scores stratify patients by risk but do not examine what level of risk should trigger surveillance. Which surveillance tools to use remains controversial - schemes have been proposed that use biomarkers alone, ultrasound alone, or a combination of both. However, the requisite level of test sensitivity that would be associated with high cure rates has not been defined, so at this point it is not clear whether surveillance requires both ultrasound and biomarkers, or whether the use of biomarkers alone is sufficient. Finally, surveillance should result in the identification of HCC at a very early stage. Diagnosing these lesions is difficult and optimal algorithms for lesions that are atypical on radiology have yet to be developed. Algorithms for the follow-up of abnormal biomarkers in the absence of ultrasound have also not been developed yet.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.