ArticleHepatology communications2026
Cost-effectiveness of HES V2.0 and GALAD for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis.
Article in Hepatology communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound-based surveillance for HCC is limited by suboptimal sensitivity and low adherence. Blood-based biomarkers are potential alternatives for routine HCC surveillance. We aimed to define optimal sensitivity, specificity, and cost parameters under which blood-based biomarkers could serve as cost-effective alternatives in patients with cirrhosis.
methodsWe developed a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCC in individuals with compensated cirrhosis. We compared the cost-effectiveness of biannual surveillance using 2 blood-based biomarkers-HES V2.0 and GALAD-versus ultrasound-based surveillance across a range of sensitivity, specificity, test costs, and adherence levels. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.
resultsAt a $200 test cost, the optimal HES V2.0 performance was 83.8% sensitivity and 62.4% specificity, yielding more QALYs than ultrasound-based surveillance (6790 vs. 6780 per 1000 patients) with an ICER of $27,686/QALY. The optimal GALAD performance was 65.9% sensitivity and 76.4% specificity, yielding a modest QALY increase (6782 vs. 6780 per 1000 patients) with an ICER of $21,374/QALY. HES V2.0 detected more very early-stage HCCs than ultrasound-based surveillance (50.9 vs. 42.4 per 1000 patients) but increased downstream diagnostic imaging, whereas GALAD yielded smaller QALY gains with a moderate increase in diagnostic testing. At specificity ≥80%, neither biomarker was cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness was strongly influenced by adherence and test cost.
conclusionsBlood-based biomarkers such as HES V2.0 and GALAD can be cost-effective alternatives to ultrasound-based HCC surveillance under defined performance and cost conditions. These findings provide quantitative benchmarks to guide clinical evaluation and inform the development of future blood-based strategies for early HCC detection.
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.