Subscribe
  • Original Article
  • OPEN ACCESS

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk Scores from Modeling to Real Clinical Practice in Areas Highly Endemic for Hepatitis B Infection

  • Xin Hao1 ,
  • Rong Fan1 ,
  • Hong-Mei Zeng2  and
  • Jin-Lin Hou1,* 
 Author information
Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology 2023;11(7):1508-1519

DOI: 10.14218/JCTH.2023.00087

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for the majority of primary liver cancers and represents a global health challenge. Liver cancer ranks third in cancer-related mortality with 830,000 deaths and sixth in incidence with 906,000 new cases annually worldwide. HCC most commonly occurs in patients with underlying liver disease, especially chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in highly endemic areas. Predicting HCC risk based on scoring models for patients with chronic liver disease is a simple, effective strategy for identifying and stratifying patients to improve the early diagnosis rate and prognosis of HCC. We examined 23 HCC risk scores published worldwide in CHB patients with (n=10) or without (n=13) antiviral treatment. We also described the characteristics of the risk score’s predictive performance and application status. In the future, higher predictive accuracy could be achieved by combining novel technologies and machine learning algorithms to develop and update HCC risk score models and integrated early warning and diagnosis systems for HCC in hospitals and communities.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma, Chronic hepatitis B, HCC risk score, HCC screening

Introduction

According to the most recent global cancer statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), primary liver cancer was the sixth most common cancer worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer death in 2020, accounting for approximately 906,000 new cases and 830,000 deaths.1 Primary liver cancer includes hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), and other rare types. HCC accounts for 75–85% of all primary liver cancers. Globally, the major causes of HCC have changed in recent years,2 and the distribution of major risk factors for HCC varies by region.3 Elimination of viral hepatitis remains the most important strategy for primary prevention of liver cancer worldwide, as hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection account for 56% and 20% of liver cancer deaths, respectively.4 In most areas with a high incidence of HCC, such as China, South Korea, and sub-Saharan Africa, chronic HBV infection remains the leading cause of liver cancer.3 Owing to the lack of simple and effective detection strategies and tools, fewer than 5% of chronic hepatitis patients worldwide are aware of their hepatitis status.5 The WHO has proposed a goal of reducing the incidence of HBV infection by 90% and mortality by 65% by 2030 compared with 2015 baseline data.6 Ninety percent of chronic viral hepatitis patients should be diagnosed, and 80% of patients should receive timely treatment.7 Of particular importance is how to effectively identify and prevent high-risk factors for HCC and how to identify and implement standardized surveillance and treatment for high-risk liver cancer populations.

HCC surveillance is considered to help improve early diagnosis rates and prolong overall survival in at-risk populations, including patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).8–11 Guidelines from various hepatology societies recommend upper abdominal ultrasonography every 6 months with or without serologic markers, mainly α-fetoprotein (AFP), for HCC screening.12–14 However, patient compliance with conventional screening still needs to be improved,15 and it remains questionable whether this single screening model can satisfy all HCC risk populations. An HCC risk prediction model could serve as a personal guide for disease management, as it could divide the population into different risk groups according to the characteristics of the disease.

Cost effectiveness studies indicate that surveillance strategies are required for patients with CHB when the annual incidence of HCC exceeds 0.2%.10 HCC risk prediction models can be used as an objective method for risk quantification. According to Voulgaris et al.,16 the main clinical benefit of a risk score is to accurately distinguish whether or not HCC surveillance is needed in patients with chronic liver disease. In low-risk populations, unnecessary anxiety and potential harm from screening could be avoided and limited medical resources could be used wisely. On the other hand, the HCC risk score may serve as a predictive guide for high-risk patients who should receive interventions that can effectively reduce such risk. HCC risk scores are considered a foundation for proper medical practice because they can guide individualized HCC screening and are cost effective.16,17 This review explains HCC risk factors and the construction and application of HCC risk scores.

HCC risk factors

Etiologies

HBV

HBV infection is one of the main risk factors for HCC. According to estimates from the WHO, 296 million people, or 3.8% of the world’s population, have chronic HBV infection.18 HBV is a DNA virus that integrates into the host genome, leading to the activation of oncogenes through insertional mutagenesis.19 HBV causes an immune response in the human body that leads to liver cell damage and inflammatory necrosis. Persistent and recurrent inflammatory necrosis leads to cirrhosis and even HCC.20 According to a meta-analysis, patients with HBV infection are 15 to 20 times more likely to develop HCC than those without HBV infection.21 Numerous factors have been found to increase HCC risk in HBV carriers, including demographics, viral parameters, liver cirrhosis, and environmental or lifestyle factors.

Among viral parameters, long duration of HBV infection, persistent hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positivity, high HBV DNA and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) levels, HBV genotype C, and coinfection with HCV and hepatitis D virus may predict a higher risk of HCC. The incidence of HCC in 30–65-year-old men who were HBsAg− and HBeAg−, HBsAg+ and HBeAg−, and HBsAg+ and HBeAg+ were 39.1, 324.3, and 1,169.4/100,000 person-years, respectively, suggesting that HBeAg positivity is associated with increased HCC risk.22 A large cohort study showed that HCC risk was increased in a dose-dependent manner compared with undetectable HBV DNA [(<5.15E+01 IU/mL), 5.15E+01–1.72E+03 IU/mL, 1.72E+03–1.72E+04 IU/mL, 1.72E+04–1.72E+05 IU/mL, and ≥1.72E+05 IU/mL, hazard ratio (HR) 1.4, 4.5, 11.3, and 17.7, p<0.001)].23 The 20-year cumulative incidence of HCC increased with increasing quantification of HBsAg (qHBsAg) levels, and the risk of HCC was significantly increased in partial patients with qHBsAg>1,000 IU/mL (HR=13.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.8–39.3]).24 Genotype C is prevalent in patients with CHB in East and Southeast Asia and is associated with an increased risk of developing HCC of other genotypes, which may be associated with delayed HBeAg seroconversion, a longer HBV replication cycle, and a higher HBV DNA burden in those patients.23,25 A meta-analysis found that patients with HBV and HCV coinfection had a higher risk of HCC than patients with infected with only HBV or HCV, or not infected with HBV or HCV [odds ratio (OR)=51.1 (95% CI: 33.7–77.6) vs. OR=27.6 (95% CI: 19.8–38.4) vs. OR=23.4 (95% CI: (17.2–31.7) vs. 1.0].26 A 20-year follow-up study in Taiwan reported that HBV vaccine reduced the risk of HCC [OR=0.31 (95% CI: 0.24–0.41)] in populations that received more than three doses and were seropositive for hepatitis B immunoglobulin.27

Cirrhosis is present in nearly 90% of HCC patients.28 The annual incidence of HCC in patients with HBV-associated cirrhosis is 3–6%,29–31 but it is only 0.5% to 1.0% in HBV patients without cirrhosis.32 A 15-year follow-up study in South Korea33 confirmed that the risk of HCC was 18.2 times higher in patients with HBV-associated cirrhosis than in patients without cirrhosis [HR=18.2 (95% CI: 17.8–23.4)]. Liver stiffness values at baseline were found to be predictive of the development of HCC in CHB patients, and the cumulative incidence rate of HCC increased in association with a high liver stiffness measurement (LSM) (p<0.001).34

Antiviral therapy suppresses HBV replication to improve liver inflammation and reduce the progression of cirrhosis and the occurrence of HCC, but cannot eliminate the risk of HCC. Regardless of the type of oral agent administered, antiviral therapy reduces the risk of HCC in CHB patients compared with untreated controls (6.4% vs. 2.8%, p=0.003).35 Entecavir36 [HR=0.03 (95% CI: 0.009–0.013)], lamivudine37 [HR=0.49 (95% CI: 0.25–0.99)], and interferon33 [HR=0.31 (95% CI: 0.18–0.63)] have been shown to reduce HCC risk to varying degrees.

HCV

Chronic HCV infection is the most common cause of HCC in North America, Europe, and Japan. Because HCV is an RNA virus, it is not integrated into the host genome. The occurrence of HCV-related HCC is most commonly observed in patients with cirrhosis or chronic liver injury with bridging fibrosis.38 A meta-analysis of case-control studies found that the risk of HCC was 17-fold higher in HCV antibody (Ab)-positive than in HCV Ab-negative patients.39 Even in HCV patients who achieve sustained virologic response (SVR) after direct-acting antiviral treatment, there is a persistent risk of developing HCC of >2% per year).40,41

Host factors

Demographic factors such as male sex and an age of more than 40 years, a family history of first-degree relatives with HCC, and an unhealthy lifestyle including consumption of foods containing aflatoxin B1,42 excessive alcohol consumption,43,44 smoking,45 and obesity46 are associated with an increased risk of HCC. Patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus relative risk (RR) [RR=1.93 (95% CI: 1.35–2.76)47] and metabolic syndrome [RR: 1.81 (95% CI: 1.37–2.41)48 have an increased risk of HCC, and the prevalence is increasing, especially in developed countries. In conclusion, these adverse factors further increase the risk of HCC based on the initial chronic liver disease.

Host genetics

Carcinogenesis of HCC is a multifactorial and complex process that includes genetic factors. Meta-analyses have shown that tumor necrosis factor variants are associated with significantly higher HCC risk.49,50 Another meta-analysis of case-control studies examined the effects of polymorphisms in genes encoding glutathione S-transferase on HCC risk. Two genetic variants, GSTT1 null [OR: 1.19 (95% CI: 0.99–1.44)] and GSTM1 null [OR: 1.16 (95% CI: 0.89–1.53)], were associated with increased risk of HCC.51

HCC risk scores

Given the causal relationship between chronic HBV infection and progression to HCC, several international studies have developed and validated risk scores to accurately predict progression to HCC in CHB patients and guide individualized surveillance. Most of the current HCC risk scores were developed based on conventional regression models. The variables commonly used to generate HCC risk scores consist of host factors including sex, age, family history, and comorbidities; virological indicators including HBeAg, HBV DNA, and HBsAg; parameters reflecting the severity of liver disease including platelets, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST), albumin, bilirubin, LSM, cirrhosis and AFP; and other variables associated with the occurrence of HCC including HBV genotype, pretreatment core promoter mutations, HBV pre-S mutants, N-glycan biosignature, gamma-glutamyl transferase isoenzyme II, etc.52

Clinical assessment indicators of the HCC risk score include negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and Harrell’s C (concordance) index. These indicators can be used to evaluate the predictive efficiency and discriminatory accuracy of the risk scores. Because the predictive power of all HCC risk scores may decrease over time,16 we record the first 5 years of the predictive performance of each risk score. In this review, we tracked 23 HCC risk scores. These risk scores are grouped according to whether or not the patient population received antiviral treatment (AVT). The risk scores reviewed here were published in academic journals indexed in PubMed, with the last update on January 18, 2023.

HCC risk scores in untreated patients with hepatitis B

The HCC risk score was based on a CHB population without antiviral therapy and including mainly Asian individuals. The risk scores, listed in alphabetical order, were APRI/FIB4,53 AGED,54 D2AS,55 NGM-HCC,56 REACH -B,57 and REACH -B II.58 We also found some risk scores based on partially treated CHB patients whenever they are in the initial or follow-up phase. Those risk score prediction models are CU-HCC,59 GAG-HCC,60 HCC-ESC61 LS Model,62 LSM-HCC,63 LSPS,64 and RWS-HCC.65 The characteristics of the 13 scores are summarized in Table 1 and the specific parameters of each HCC risk score are shown in Table 2. The untreated risk scores were mainly generated by research institutions in Asia. With the exception of the community-based cohorts REVEAL-HBV and Qidong Hepatitis B (commonly known as QBC), all others are hospital-based cohorts. The predictive power of these scores is quite good in the derivation cohort. The AUROCs for predictability at 5 years ranged from 0.73 to 0.95, but the calibration power and an external validation study were not available for each risk score.

Table 1

HCC risk scores in untreated patients with CHB

Risk score/Country/Region/YearSettingPatients, nFollow-up duration/HCC occurred, n (%)Characteristics of patients
Predictability at 5 years
Independent Validation
Cirrhosis,%HBeAg (+), %Antiviral/exposure, %AUROCNPV/pts, %PPV/pts, %Calibration
NGM-HCC/Taiwan, China/2010Community-basedDerivation, 2,435––15.00––/––/––Yes/Yes/No
Validation, 1,218––16.300.848, 0.882, 0.883–/––/–Yes
REACH-B/Taiwan, China/Hong Kong, China/Korea/2011Community-basedDerivation, 3,58412.0 (11.5–12.4) years*/131 (3.7)015.20––/––/–YesYes
Hospital-basedValidation, 1,5057.0 (5.0–10.3) years*/111 (7.4)18.438.900·79699.2/–21.0/–
REACH-B II/Taiwan, China/2013Community-basedDerivation, 2,22739,016 person-years/164 (306.3/100,000 person-years)14.715.100.89–/––/––Yes
Validation, 1,11300.84–/––/–
AGED/China/2018Community-basedDerivation, 62821 years*/110 (–)030.7–0.76−/32.2–/9.5–No
–Validation, 1,66310 years*/87 (–)–––0.73–/54.0–/5.5
GAG-HCC/Hong Kong, China/2009Hospital-basedDerivation, 82076.8±36.2 months#/40 (4.9)15.143.410.70.8898.3/–14.0/––Yes
CU-HCC/Hong Kong, China/2010Hospital-basedDerivation, 1,00510 years*/105 (10.4)38.115.1–97.8/54.329.0/17.6–Yes
Hospital-basedValidation, 42410 years*/45 (10.6)16.325.00.7698.3/70.027.0/14.2
LSM-HCC/Hong Kong, China/2014Hospital-basedDerivation, 1,03569±9 months#/38 (3.7)32.025.038.00.8399.4/68.08.8/32.0–Yes
Validation, 52069 months*/17 (3.4)31.025.032.00.8399.7/70.07.6/30.0
HCC-ESC/Hong Kong, China/2018Hospital-basedDerivation, 72318.3 (2.8–32.9) years*/44 (−)–100.032.00.95100.0/–3.2/––No
LS Model/Korea/2013Hospital-basedDerivation, 1,11030.7 months*/56 (–)16.336.037.80.806a–/––/–YesNo
LSPS/Korea/2015Hospital-basedDerivation, 22761.7 (49.0–74.5)months*/18 (7.9)––78.00.83497.5/75.036.0/11.0–Yes
APRI/FIB4/Korea/2017Hospital-basedDerivation, 1,0065.1 (0.1–9.6)*/36 (3.6)13.8000.78$99.3/55.411.2/19.5–Yes
D2AS risk score/Korea/2017Hospital-basedDerivation, 9714.5 (1.0–8.7)*/26 (2.7)056.300.884$99.4/65.022.0/14.0YesNo
Hospital-basedValidation, 507–041.600.87699.6/60.014.0/18.0Yes
RWS-HCC/Singapore/2016Hospital-basedDerivation, 53858.9 months*/42 (7.8)14.931.016.70.915b98.8/77.3–/22.7–Yes
Validation, 3,353––––0.767, 0.830, 0.90297.0/–, 97.9/–, 93.0/––/–

AFP, α-fetoprotein; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; HBV, hepatitis B virus; LS, liver stiffness; NPV, negative predictive value; PLT, platelets; PPV, positive predictive value; pts, percentages. aFor 3-year prediction; bFor 10-year prediction; *Median duration of follow-up; #Mean duration of follow-up; $Time-dependent AUROC.

Table 2

Parameters of HCC risk scores in untreated patients with CHB

Risk scoreDemographics
Viral activity
Hepatic inflammation
Hepatic dysfunction
Cirrhosis
NeoplasticOther
AgeSexOtherqHBsAgHBeAgHBV DNAOtherALTASTALBBilirubinCirrhosis diagnosisLSMPLTAFP
Parameters of HCC risk scores in untreated patients with hepatitis B
  REACH-B•••••
  REACH-B II••Family history (HCC)•••HBV genotype•
  NGM1-HCC••Family history (HCC)••Alcohol consumption
  NGM2-HCC••Family history (HCC)•••Alcohol consumption
  NGM3-HCC••Family history (HCC)••HBV genotype•Alcohol consumption
  AGED••••
  GAG-HCC•••±core promoter mutations•
  CU-HCC•••••
  LSM-HCC••••
  HCC-ESC•••••
  LS Model•••
  LSPS••Spleen diameter
  APRI/FIB4••••
  D2AS•••
  RWS-HCC••••
Parameters of HCC risk scores in treated patients with hepatitis B
  mREACH-B•••••
  PAGE-B•••
  mPAGE-B••••
  HCC-RESCUE•••
  AASL••••
  CAMPAS••••••
  APA-B•••
  CAMD••DM•
  REAL-B••DM•••Alcohol consumption
aMAP•••••

AFP, α-fetoprotein; ALB, albumin; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; DM, diabetes mellitus; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LSM, liver stiffness measurement; PLT, platelets.

The NGM-HCC, REACH-B, and REACH-B II scores were constructed from the same REVEAL-HBV cohort.56–58 The AUROCs for the three NGM-HCC subscores were all greater than 0.8 for predicting the 5-year HCC risk.56 The HCC-ESC was developed in 723 HBeAg-positive patients with HBeAg seroclearance (ESC). Older age at ESC, male sex, higher HBV DNA, cirrhosis, hypoalbuminemia, and persistent abnormal ALT were predictive factors for the occurrence of HCC. The authors also reported the HBsAg seroclearance rate after HBeAg seroclearance (ESC) in this cohort. The first two parameters were the same as HCC-ESC, lower HBV DNA levels, and absence of AVT were significant predictors of HBsAg seroclearance.61 Two noninvasive tests, APRI and FIB-4 were combined to differentiate HCC risk for chronic HBV-infected patients with low-level viremia, defined as HBV DNA of <2,000 IU/mL). The AUROC value for the APRI/FIB-4 score reached 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75–0.81).55 The D2AS score (age, sex, HBV DNA) was constructed in CHB patients with elevated HBV DNA levels (>2.000 IU/mL) with normal or slightly elevated ALT levels (<80 U/L). This score is a four point risk scale, with 0% and 17.8% corresponding to the 5-year HCC risk in very low-risk and high-risk groups, respectively, and the AUROC reached 0.88 in both the derivation and validation cohorts.55 The RWS-HCC risk score was developed in a real-world CHB cohort for 10-year HCC prediction [AUROC: 0.915 (95% CI: 0.880–0.949)]. This score was further validated in the REACH-B [AUROC: 0.767 (95% CI: 0.725–0.810)], GAG-HCC [AUROC: 0.830 (95% CI:0.747–0.913)], and CU-HCC [AUROC: 0.902 (95% CI: 0.856–0.948)] cohorts.65

Comments for clinical application in untreated risk scores

The transferability and generalizability of the HCC prediction score based on cohorts of subjects not receiving AVT remains to be confirmed. First, the widespread application of untreated prediction models is hampered by the current international academic framework advocating AVT strategies for viral hepatitis. Although the untreated risk score had reasonably good predictive power at the time it was derived, patients classified as being at risk for HCC would not be consistently untreated. Therefore, it is reasonable to question the predictive power of scores developed from untreated cohorts that include parameters of viral activity (qHBsAg, HBeAg, HBV DNA, etc.) and degree of cirrhosis, which may change after antiviral therapy.66,67 Therefore, it is rare to compare the predictive efficacy of risk scores in untreated CHB patients. We found one comparative study including CU-HCC [AUROC: 0.737 [95% CI: 0.677–0.797]), LSM-HCC [AUROC: 0.709 (95% CI: 0.638–0.780)], and REACH-B [AUROC: 0.681 (95% CI: 0.596–0.766)] scores in 922 untreated Korean patients.68 The predictive performance of these risk scores is similar in the context of this study.

Considering that a discrimination efficiency (AUROC/C-index) of less than 0.7 would be considered an unsatisfactory prediction model,17 the risk score developed from untreated cohorts performed satisfactorily in the original queues. However, when extended to other scenarios, the prediction efficiency may decrease. When the REACH-B score was applied to the cohort of treated populations, the discrimination score for predicting HCC risk was only 0.61 [AUROC: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.54–0.68)].69 In the external validation study for the four scores CU-HCC, GAG-HCC, REACH-B, and LSM-HCC, it was confirmed that the predictive efficiency was lower in the treated populations than in the original untreated scenario.70 Interestingly, CU-HCC [AUROC: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68–0.81)] and GAG-HCC [AUROC: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75–0.86)] were significantly more accurate than REACH-B [AUROC: 0.57 (95% CI: 0.47–0.68)] in a Korean treated cohort.71 Similar results were reported by Abu-Amara et al.72 It might contribute that parameters of cirrhosis and liver dysfunction were included in the GAG-HCC and CU-HCC score but not in the REACH-B score. In addition, the REVEAL-HBV cohort, which is the derived cohort of the REACH-B score, is composed of populations from communities where patients may have an earlier stage of natural history and a milder disease state. In addition, patients with liver cirrhosis were excluded from the REVEAL-HBV cohort. The lower effectiveness of external validation in the hospital population can be explained by differences in baseline components. On the other hand, it is helpful to show that viral replication is the natural driver of CHB disease progression, as a large proportion of the parameters representing viral activity in untreated scores can be determined in this way.73,74 Individual recommendations can also be made for high-risk populations as to whether they should receive AVT in the future.

HCC risk scores in treated patients with hepatitis B

HCC risk score models based on patients receiving antiviral therapy include mREACH-B,75 PAGE-B,76 mPAGE-B,69 HCC-RESCUE,77 AASL-HCC,78 CAMPAS,79 APA-B,80 CAMD,81 REAL-B82 and aMAP risk score.83 The characteristics of these 10 scores are summarized in Table 3. Most scores were developed using hospital-based cohorts, with the exception of the CAMD score, which was developed using a population-based cohort from a national health database. In addition to age, all scores included parameters reflecting liver dysfunction and cirrhosis. Because virologic indicators can change after treatment,8–10 these parameters (ie, qHBsAg, HBeAg, and HBV DNA) were not included in the treated risk scores, with the exception of the mREACH-B score. The discriminatory power of the treated scores at 5 years ranged from 0.75 to 0.90 (AUROC or C-index). As with the untreated scores, calibration performance and external validation studies were not available for all risk scores.

Table 3

HCC risk scores in treated patients with CHB

Risk score/Country/Region/YearSettingPatients, nFollow-up duration/HCC occurred, n(%)Characteristics of patients
Predictability at 5-years
Independent Validation
Cirrhosis, %HBeAg(+), %AVTAUROCC-indexNPV/pts,%PPV/pts, %Calibration
mREACH-B/Korea/2014Hospital-basedDerivation, 19243.0 (25.1–49.2) months*/15 (7.8)46.952.1ETV0.805a––/––/––Yes
PAGE-B/Europe/2016Hospital-basedDerivation, 1,32550 (31–62) months*/51 (3.8)20.016.0ETV/TDF–0.82100.0/24.717.0/28.1YesYes
Hospital-basedValidation, 49050 (31–62) months*/34 (6.9)48.018.0–0.82100.0/11.416.0/40.7Yes
mPAGE-B/Korea/2018Hospital-basedDerivation, 2,00149 (33–68) months*/132 (6.6)19.133.9ETV/TDF0.82–99.3/22.414.4/31.0YesYes
Validation, 1,00049 (33–68) months*/72 (7.2)20.134.50.82–98.1/23.518.0/29.3Yes
HCC-RESCUE/Korea/2017Hospital-basedDerivation, 9902.1 (1.3–4.2) years*/58 (5.9)39.056.0ETV0.768–99.5/–37.0/––No
Validation, 1,0713.5 (2.4–4.9) years*/85 (6.3)35.061.00.809–98.0/–41.0/––
AASL-HCC/Korea/2019Hospital-basedDerivation, 94448.6 (29–69.7) months*/56 (5.9)39.355.9ETV/TDF–0.802100.0/24.718.0/24.9YesNo
Hospital-basedValidation, 29841.4 (25.7–62.8) months*/24 (8.8)38.965.40.814b0.805100.0/26.531.0/31.2–
CAMPAS/Korea/2019/Hospital-basedDerivation, 1,5117 years after viral remission/143 (9.5)39.852.6NUCs–0.874c99.4/33.433.5/17.9YesNo
Hospital-basedValidation, 252–––––0.847––Yes
APA-B/Taiwan/China/2017Hospital-basedDerivation, 88349.1 (12–130.6) months*/105 (7.9)35.935.2ETV0.8270.8598.1/73.0–/7.0YesNo
Validation, 44237.137.10.8620.8799.1/73.5–/8.0Yes
CAMD/Taiwan/Hong Kong/China/2018Population-basedDerivation, 23,58125.8 (12.7–35.7) months*/596 (2.50)26.5–ETV/TDF–0.82a99.7/35.911.0/21.2YesYes
Validation, 19,32133.3 (13.4–36.0) months*/383 (1.98)7.1––0.7699.1/42.314.0/7.1Yes
REAL-B/USA./Asia-Pacific/2020Hospital-basedDerivation, 5,36529,571.84 person-years/378 (7.0)20.237.4NUCs0.80––/––/–YesNo
Validation, 2,68314,945.27 person-years/202 (7.5)22.137.9NUCs0.81––/35.2–/11.0Yes
aMAP/Worldwide/2020Hospital-basedDerivation, 3,68842.7 (35.5–55.4) months*/95 (2.6)19.339.5aETV/TDF0.810.8299.5/58.913.3/8.8YesYes
Hospital-Based&Validation, 13,68633.6 (27.6–40.1) – 105.4 (100.8–108.4) months*/536 (3.9)11.4–10.018.0–72.0$ETV/TDF/ADV/TAF–0.82–0.8799.3–100.0/39.46.6–15.7/20.4Yes

ADV, adefovir dipivoxil; AVT, antiviral treatment; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; ETV, entecavir; NUCs, nucleoside analogues; TAF, tenofovir alafenamide; TDF, tenofovir dipivoxil. aFor 3-year prediction; bFor 10-year prediction; cFor 7-year prediction; *Median duration of follow-up; &For nine validation cohorts; $For 6 CHB validation cohorts.

The mREACH-B score replaced the original HBV DNA parameters in the REACH-B score with LSM values, and its predicted efficacy in the population receiving ETV AVT increased from 0.699 to 0.732.75 The PAGE-B score was developed from nine European cohorts. The 5-year HCC risk was 0.0% in the low-risk group (≤9), the NPV reached 100%, and the discrimination was 0.82.76 A multicenter retrospective study in South Korea assigned 3,001 treated CHB patients to the external validation cohort of the PAGE-B model, and a modified PAGE-B (mPAGE-B) prediction model was developed based on four variables, age, sex, platelet count, and albumin level. In the validation cohort, mPAGE-B had the highest 5-year HCC prediction efficiency [AUROC: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76–0.88)], compared with the PAGE-B, CU-HCC, GAG-HCC, and REACH-B scores (Table 4).69 The discrimination data of the queue-verified risk scores of mPAGE-B, AASL-HCC, APA-B, CAMD, REAL-B, and aMAP risk score are shown in Table 4. Most of the treated scores were constructed from Asian cohorts, with the exception of PAGE-B, REAL-B, and the aMAP risk score. REAL-B score was constructed based on data from centers in the USA and the Asia-Pacific region, with an ethnic composition that was primarily Chinese (82%).82 The aMAP risk score was constructed based on 11 global prospective observational cohorts and randomized controlled trials of 17,374 patients with pan-etiologic chronic liver disease.83 The 11 cohorts, including seven with chronic hepatitis B, were included in the review. The discrimination (C-index) of this model was 0.82–0.87, and the cutoff value of 50 corresponded to an NPV of 99.3–100% for discriminating patients without HCC risk. To our knowledge, aMAP is the first score constructed in the Asian CHB cohort and has been externally validated using data from Caucasian and Melanoderma populations. The aMAP score performed well in the UK realistic world cohort [C-index: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79–0.82)],84 the UK cohort of HCV-related cirrhosis and SVR patients [C-index: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73–0.81)],85 the Japanese HCV SVR cohort (AUROC: 0.757)86 and the Egyptian HCV-related cirrhosis cohort (C-index: 0.713)87 to predict 3- or 5-year HCC incidence.

Table 4

Comparison of predictability of HCC risk scores in different cohorts

Risk scoresValidation cohorts
REACH-B, Asian
mREACH-B, Asian
GAG-HCC, Asian
CU-HCC, Asian
LSM-HCC, Asian
PAGE-B, Europe
mPAGE-B, Asian
0.796 (0.775–0.816)0.805 (0.678–0.925)0.88 (0.82–0.93)0.76 (0.66–0.86)0.83 (0.71–0.94)0.820.82 (0.76–0.88)
mPAGE-B/Asian/0.82 (0.76–0.88)••••
0.61 (0.54–0.68)0.71 (0.65–0.79)0.70 (0.63–0.78)0.72 (0.65–0.78)
AASL-HCC/Asian/0.805 (0.671–0.939)••••
0.640 (0.561–0.719)0.810 (0.764–0.856)0.758 (0.705–0.811)0.719 (0.656–0.782)
APA-B/Asian/0.827 (0.771–0.883)•••
0.620 (0.535–0.705)0.760 (0.698–0.821)0.696 (0.620–0.773)
CAMD/Asian/0.75 (0.73–0.77)•
0.74 (0.72–0.76)
REAL-B/USA. & Asia-pacific/0.81 (0.77–0.85)•
0.73 (0.69–0.78)
aMAP/Worldwide/0.82 (0.77–0.86)••••••
0.64 (0.59–0.70)0.78 (0.73–0.83)0.73 (0.66–0.79)0.77 (0.72–0.82)0.79 (0.75–0.84)0.80 (0.76–0.85)

The display above showcases the characteristic curve or concordance index.

Comparison of the performance of the treated score (aMAP, mREACH-B, PAGE-B, mPAGE-B), the partially treated score (CU-HCC, LSM-HCC), and the untreated score (REACH-B) was described in the original report of the aMAP risk score.83 In both the Asian and Caucasian CHB cohorts, the aMAP score provided the highest discrimination among the scores and subgroups (Table 4). Compared with the PAGE-B score, the aMAP score had better performance in predicting HCC in the European PAGE-B cohort (C-index: 0.82 vs. 0.76) and the cirrhosis subgroup (C-index: 0.71 vs. 0.66). Other comparative data are more commonly found at PAGE-B, mPAGE-B, and CAMD scores. For example, a Hong Kong territory-wide database analysis showed that mPAGE-B was slightly more accurate than PAGE-B, with a 5-year AUROC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79–0.81) vs. 0.77 (95% CI: 0.76–0.78).88 A Korean multicenter cohort study by Kim et al.89 showed that the AUROC was higher with CAMD (0.79, 95% CI: 0.77–0.81) than with PAGE -B [0.76 (95% CI: 0.74–0.78)] and mPAGE-B [0.77 (95% CI: 0.75–0.79)]. Compared with the untreated risk scores, the treated risk scores had better transferability. Jung et al.70 found that mREACH-B [AUROC: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76–0.84)] had the highest predictive performance for 5-year prediction in a Korean cohort of treated CHB patients, outperforming LSM-HCC [AUROC: 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71–0.80)], GAG-HCC [AUROC: 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69–0.80)], CU-HCC [AUROC: 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63–0.75)], and REACH-B [AUROC: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.60–0.72)]. The trend is similar to that in the aMAP study.

Comments for clinical application in treated risk scores

When applying these scores in clinical practice, it should be noted that the inclusion criteria in the original study were different for each score. All subjects in the cohort received AVT, whereas the mREACH-B and CAMPAS score cohorts included patients who received AVT until a virologic response was achieved. The timing of AVT was not the same in all cohorts. Treatment-naïve patients participated in the derivation studies for AASL and APA-B, whereas other studies included treatment-experienced patients (e.g., PAGE-B, mPAGE-B, CAMD, REAL-B, and aMAP). All risk scores were derived from patients receiving continuous AVT. The predictive efficacy of risk scores for patients receiving intermittent treatment has not been clarified.

Novel risk prediction score based on artificial intelligence (AI)

In addition to traditional HCC risk scores, novel technologies such as liquid biopsy, metabolomics, and microbiota have shown increasing potential for health status classification prediction of disease progression, and high predictive accuracy for early cancer detection, including HCC. However, difficulties can arise in analyzing multidimensional data using conventional statistical modeling. Under these circumstances, algorithmic approaches offer a promising alternative for dealing with the dimensionality of the data. A prediction of liver cancer using AI-driven model for network-hepatitis B (PLAN-B) model was developed based on the gradient boosting machine algorithm. The PLAN-B HCC risk score was generated in 6,501 CHB patients treated with ETV or tenofovir dipivoxil (referred to as TDF herein) and underwent independent external validation in South Korea and Western countries.90 The PLAN-B model contains 10 parameters, cirrhosis, age, platelet count, ETV or TDF antiviral agent used, sex, serum ALT levels, baseline serum HBV DNA levels, serum albumin and bilirubin levels, and HBeAg status. The PLAN-B model achieved high predictive accuracy in South Korea (C-index: 0.79) and in multicenter external cohorts in Western countries (C-index: 0.81), which is superior to conventional prediction models such as PAGE-B, mPAGE-B, REACH-B, and CU-HCC. However, although the machine learning algorithm pursues high accuracy, the methods are not simple, opaque, or even interpretable, which limits their wide clinical application. In addition, model selection often results in overfitting.17

Caveats and status quo of clinical application of HCC risk scores

In addition to high model discrimination and calibration, handy model parameters, and a simple calculation process are also crucial for the clinical application of the risk score. For example, it is technically and economically challenging to determine HBV genotype and core promoter mutations in the REACH-B II, NGM-HCC, and GAG-HCC score, respectively, which may hinder widespread application in hospitals and communities.

The basic purpose of the HCC prediction score is to cost-effectively identify patients who do or do not require HCC monitoring. An HCC prediction score with an NPV of ≥99% for 5 years (or ≥98% for 10 years) could be considered an acceptable screening tool in clinical practice. Otherwise, the risk score is not considered meaningful enough to safely exclude low-risk patients from HCC surveillance.16 Five of thirteen untreated scores53,55,57,61,63 and five of ten treated76,78,79,81,83 met the standard in both the derivation and validation cohorts in their original study (Tables 1 and 3). Although NPV was not reported in all original studies, some independent studies reported NPV predictability. Two independent studies from CU-HCC had an NPV of >99% for 5-year prediction.66,72 The PAGE-B score has a good predictive effect for discriminating low-risk populations (NPV>99%), not only in the original study but also in independent studies of Caucasian, mixed,91,92 and Asian populations.71,89,93 Two Asian studies reported an NPV of 99.3–100% for the mPAGE-B score.89,93 In studies with available data, the proportion in the low-risk group ranged from 32.2–77.3% in untreated cohorts, which was higher than in treated cohorts (11.4–73.5%). That may be due to the more advanced disease status of patients receiving AVT.

The PPVs of the risk scores provide clues for stratifying patients in need of HCC surveillance, and the proportion of patients classified in the high-risk group is equally important. The PPVs and proportion of the high-risk group reported in the original study for untreated risk scores ranged from 3.2–36% and 5.5–32%, respectively. For treated risk scores, the PPVs ranged from 6.6% to 33.5% and the proportion of the high-risk group ranged from 7.0% to 40.7%. The key to establishing an HCC risk score lies in its clinical application to provide guidelines for monitoring patients at risk. The aMAP score, developed by the author team,83 is currently being actively used in clinical practice. In addition to predicting HCC risk in patients with chronic liver disease [C-index: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79–0.82)],84 it can also be used as an effective tool to predict late recurrence of HCC after radiofrequency ablation [C-index: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74–0.84)].94 The aMAP score was also shown to be an independent risk factor for rehospitalization [OR=1.112 (95% CI: 1.021–1.211)], HCC recurrence [HR=2.277 (95% CI: 1.014–5.114)], and mortality [HR: 1.366 (95% CI: 1.041–1.794)] in patients with HBV-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure.95 Of note, although the aMAP score was based on the design of tertiary hospitals in different countries, it also proved to be applicable for 3,629 patients with chronic liver disease from a primary hospital in China with 52.6% low-risk patients).96 The aMAP score has shown good transferability and generalizability in subsequent studies and different settings. However, like other risk scores, the aMAP score has weaknesses. First, the constructed scores did not capture dynamic changes, particularly in patients who achieved SVR after AVT, which may be more important than baseline data. Second, all risk scores were derived for treated cohorts of patients who received continuous AVT. The predictive efficacy of a risk score for patients receiving intermittent treatment has not been clarified. Third, the PPV value of the aMAP score was not optimal at a cutoff value of 60. The combination of other variables, such as liver stiffness and circulating cell-free DNA signatures, may be used to improve the predictive efficacy in the high-risk group.

Conclusions

Before extensive clinical application, the applicable population for each score should be determined to ensure predictive efficiency. Because of the different details in the derivation cohorts for each risk score, it is critical to match the “right” score and the “right” target population. To truly and accurately predict HCC risk, the dynamic changes in parameters and treatment interruption should be accounted for in future HCC risk scores.

The ability of conventional prognostic models to accurately identify high-risk HCC populations needs to be improved. Published HCC risk scores can be combined with novel indicators and technologies such as cell-free DNA signatures gene traits, metabolomics, and AI, and investigators need to explore whether they can further improve the accuracy of predictive models in high-risk populations. These novel indicators and technologies have mostly been studied in retrospective analyses and case-control studies. Large prospective multicenter studies with higher levels of evidence are urgently needed. In addition, it should be comprehensively demonstrated and validated whether predictive models using novel technologies are suitable for large-scale application and whether the cost-benefit ratio is correct.

The transformation of risk scores into applications may occur on a larger scale through real-life channels such as the use of cell phones or Internet platforms. Risk scores posted on Internet platforms can help physicians and patients make an initial understanding and assessment of a disease easily and effectively.97,98 Only by promoting HCC risk prediction models in medical institutions at all levels and through other convenient channels will it be possible to broadly distinguish HCC risk in patients with chronic liver disease, identify low-risk patients who do not require frequent HCC surveillance, and provide timely and rational follow-up for high-risk HCC populations, thereby providing a theoretical basis for transforming risk prediction into HCC screening decisions. For developing countries with large populations and a high incidence of HBV infection, it is important to develop a predictive scoring model that can be readily applied in primary hospitals and communities to predict HCC risk and enable hierarchical management. To facilitate implementation and guide patient management in clinical practice, the risk score can also be incorporated into the liver function test panel and the electronic hospital system.

HCC screening and surveillance is a public health program at the national level. Implementation at all levels should create a hospital-community integrated HCC screening model. Based on HCC risk scores, high-risk populations can be accurately identified and enrolled in a lifelong surveillance program. Effective stratified management can provide the basis for improving early diagnosis and treatment rates of HCC patients and subsequently reducing HCC-related mortality.

Abbreviations

AI: 

artificial intelligence

ALT: 

serum alanine aminotransferase

AUROC: 

area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

AVT: 

antiviral treatment

CHB: 

chronic hepatitis B

C index: 

concordance index

CI: 

confidence interval

ESC: 

seroclearance

ETV: 

entecavir

HBeAg: 

hepatitis B e antigen

HBsAg: 

hepatitis B surface antigen

HBV: 

hepatitis B virus

HCV: 

hepatitis C virus

HR: 

hazard ratio

LSM: 

liver stiffness measurement

NPV: 

negative predictive value

OR: 

odds ratio

PPV: 

positive predictive value

RR: 

relative risk

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Funding

This work was supported by National Key Research and Funding Development Program of China (No.2022YFC2303600).

Conflict of interest

JLH has been an executive associate editor of Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology since 2021. The other authors have no conflict of interests related to this publication.

Authors’ contributions

Data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing (XH), critical revision and technical support (RF, HMZ), study design, critical revision and technical support (JLH).

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209-249 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  2. Marengo A, Rosso C, Bugianesi E. Liver Cancer: Connections with Obesity, Fatty Liver, and Cirrhosis. Annu Rev Med 2016;67:103-117 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  3. Chimed T, Sandagdorj T, Znaor A, Laversanne M, Tseveen B, Genden P, et al. Cancer incidence and cancer control in Mongolia: Results from the National Cancer Registry 2008-12. Int J Cancer 2017;140(2):302-309 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  4. Plummer M, de Martel C, Vignat J, Ferlay J, Bray F, Franceschi S. Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2012: a synthetic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2016;4(9):e609-e616 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  5. Nayagam S, Thursz M, Sicuri E, Conteh L, Wiktor S, Low-Beer D, et al. Requirements for global elimination of hepatitis B: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2016;16(12):1399-1408 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  6. World Health Organization. Combating hepatitis B and C to reach elimination by 2030. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/combating-hepatitis-b-and-c-to-reach-elimination-by-2030 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  7. World Health Organization. Global health sector strategy on viral hepatitis 2016-2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HIV-2016.06 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  8. Sarin SK, Kumar M, Lau GK, Abbas Z, Chan HL, Chen CJ, et al. Asian-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatitis B: a 2015 update. Hepatol Int 2016;10(1):1-98 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  9. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 2017;67(2):370-398 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  10. Terrault NA, Lok ASF, McMahon BJ, Chang KM, Hwang JP, Jonas MM, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Hepatology 2018;67(4):1560-1599 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  11. Singal AG, Pillai A, Tiro J. Early detection, curative treatment, and survival rates for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2014;11(4):e1001624 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  12. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, Kudo M, Lee JM, Jia J, et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int 2017;11(4):317-370 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  13. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, et al. Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018;68(2):723-750 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  14. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018;69(1):182-236 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  15. Villanueva A. Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2019;380(15):1450-1462 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  16. Voulgaris T, Papatheodoridi M, Lampertico P, Papatheodoridis GV. Clinical utility of hepatocellular carcinoma risk scores in chronic hepatitis B. Liver Int. 2020;40(3):484-495 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  17. Hsu YC, Tseng CH, Huang YT, Yang HI. Application of Risk Scores for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: Current Status and Future Perspective. Semin Liver Dis 2021;41(3):285-297 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  18. World Health Organization. Global progress report on HIV, viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240027077 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  19. Wang J, Chenivesse X, Henglein B, Bréchot C. Hepatitis B virus integration in a cyclin A gene in a hepatocellular carcinoma. Nature 1990;343(6258):555-557 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  20. Chinese Society of Infectious Diseases, Chinese Medical Association, Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association. [The guidelines of prevention and treatment for chronic hepatitis B (2019 version)]. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi 2019;27(12):938-961 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  21. Shi J, Zhu L, Liu S, Xie WF. A meta-analysis of case-control studies on the combined effect of hepatitis B and C virus infections in causing hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Br J Cancer 2005;92(3):607-612 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  22. Yang HI, Lu SN, Liaw YF, You SL, Sun CA, Wang LY, et al. Hepatitis B e antigen and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2002;347(3):168-174 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  23. Chen CJ, Yang HI, Su J, Jen CL, You SL, Lu SN, et al. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma across a biological gradient of serum hepatitis B virus DNA level. JAMA 2006;295(1):65-73 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  24. Tseng TC, Liu CJ, Yang HC, Su TH, Wang CC, Chen CL, et al. High levels of hepatitis B surface antigen increase risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with low HBV load. Gastroenterology 2012;142(5):1140-1149.e3 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  25. Yu MW, Yeh SH, Chen PJ, Liaw YF, Lin CL, Liu CJ, et al. Hepatitis B virus genotype and DNA level and hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study in men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(4):265-272 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  26. Cho LY, Yang JJ, Ko KP, Park B, Shin A, Lim MK, et al. Coinfection of hepatitis B and C viruses and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2011;128(1):176-184 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  27. Chang MH, You SL, Chen CJ, Liu CJ, Lee CM, Lin SM, et al. Decreased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis B vaccinees: a 20-year follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101(19):1348-1355 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  28. El-Serag HB. Epidemiology of viral hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2012;142(6):1264-1273.e1 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  29. Chen YC, Chu CM, Yeh CT, Liaw YF. Natural course following the onset of cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a long-term follow-up study. Hepatol Int 2007;1(1):267-273 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  30. Chu CM, Liaw YF. Hepatitis B virus-related cirrhosis: natural history and treatment. Semin Liver Dis 2006;26(2):142-152 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  31. Hsu YS, Chien RN, Yeh CT, Sheen IS, Chiou HY, Chu CM, et al. Long-term outcome after spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2002;35(6):1522-1527 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  32. Fattovich G, Bortolotti F, Donato F. Natural history of chronic hepatitis B: special emphasis on disease progression and prognostic factors. J Hepatol 2008;48(2):335-352 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  33. Lin SM, Yu ML, Lee CM, Chien RN, Sheen IS, Chu CM, et al. Interferon therapy in HBeAg positive chronic hepatitis reduces progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2007;46(1):45-52 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  34. Jung KS, Kim SU, Ahn SH, Park YN, Kim DY, Park JY, et al. Risk assessment of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma development using liver stiffness measurement (FibroScan). Hepatology 2011;53(3):885-894 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  35. Papatheodoridis GV, Lampertico P, Manolakopoulos S, Lok A. Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients receiving nucleos(t)ide therapy: a systematic review. J Hepatol 2010;53(2):348-356 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  36. Hou JL, Zhao W, Lee C, Hann HW, Peng CY, Tanwandee T, et al. Outcomes of Long-term Treatment of Chronic HBV Infection With Entecavir or Other Agents From a Randomized Trial in 24 Countries. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18(2):457-467.e21 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  37. Liaw YF, Sung JJ, Chow WC, Farrell G, Lee CZ, Yuen H, et al. Lamivudine for patients with chronic hepatitis B and advanced liver disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351(15):1521-1531 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  38. Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, Singal AG, Pikarsky E, Roayaie S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2021;7(1):6 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  39. Donato F, Tagger A, Gelatti U, Parrinello G, Boffetta P, Albertini A, et al. Alcohol and hepatocellular carcinoma: the effect of lifetime intake and hepatitis virus infections in men and women. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155(4):323-331 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  40. Ioannou GN, Beste LA, Green PK, Singal AG, Tapper EB, Waljee AK, et al. Increased Risk for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Persists Up to 10 Years After HCV Eradication in Patients With Baseline Cirrhosis or High FIB-4 Scores. Gastroenterology 2019;157(5):1264-1278.e4 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  41. Llovet JM, Villanueva A. Liver cancer: Effect of HCV clearance with direct-acting antiviral agents on HCC. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;13(10):561-562 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  42. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC Monographs volumes 1 to 42. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum Suppl. 1987;7:1-440 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  43. Corrao G, Bagnardi V, Zambon A, La Vecchia C. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases. Prev Med 2004;38(5):613-619 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  44. Shimazu T, Sasazuki S, Wakai K, Tamakoshi A, Tsuji I, Sugawara Y, et al. Alcohol drinking and primary liver cancer: a pooled analysis of four Japanese cohort studies. Int J Cancer 2012;130(11):2645-2653 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  45. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2014. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/ View Article PubMed/NCBI
  46. Larsson SC, Wolk A. Overweight, obesity and risk of liver cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br J Cancer 2007;97(7):1005-1008 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  47. Chen J, Han Y, Xu C, Xiao T, Wang B. Effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic liver diseases: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Cancer Prev 2015;24(2):89-99 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  48. Jinjuvadia R, Patel S, Liangpunsakul S. The association between metabolic syndrome and hepatocellular carcinoma: systemic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014;48(2):172-177 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  49. Guo YM, Wei WY, Shen XZ. Tumour necrosis factor 308 polymorphisms and hepatocellular carcinoma risk: a meta-analysis. Hepatogastroenterology 2010;57(101):926-931 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  50. Qin H, Liu B, Shi T, Liu Y, Sun Y, Ma Y. Tumour necrosis factor-alpha polymorphisms and hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Int Med Res 2010;38(3):760-768 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  51. White DL, Li D, Nurgalieva Z, El-Serag HB. Genetic variants of glutathione S-transferase as possible risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma: a HuGE systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167(4):377-389 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  52. Yu JH, Cho SG, Jin YJ, Lee JW. The best predictive model for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection. Clin Mol Hepatol 2022;28(3):351-361 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  53. Paik N, Sinn DH, Lee JH, Oh IS, Kim JH, Kang W, et al. Non-invasive tests for liver disease severity and the hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B patients with low-level viremia. Liver Int 2018;38(1):68-75 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  54. Fan C, Li M, Gan Y, Chen T, Sun Y, Lu J, et al. A simple AGED score for risk classification of primary liver cancer: development and validation with long-term prospective HBsAg-positive cohorts in Qidong, China. Gut 2019;68(5):948-949 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  55. Sinn DH, Lee JH, Kim K, Ahn JH, Lee JH, Kim JH, et al. A Novel Model for Predicting Hepatocellular Carcinoma Development in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B and Normal Alanine Aminotransferase Levels. Gut Liver 2017;11(4):528-534 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  56. Yang HI, Sherman M, Su J, Chen PJ, Liaw YF, Iloeje UH, et al. Nomograms for risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(14):2437-2444 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  57. Yang HI, Yuen MF, Chan HL, Han KH, Chen PJ, Kim DY, et al. Risk estimation for hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B (REACH-B): development and validation of a predictive score. Lancet Oncol 2011;12(6):568-574 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  58. Lee MH, Yang HI, Liu J, Batrla-Utermann R, Jen CL, Iloeje UH, et al. E.V.E.A.L.-HBV Study Group. Prediction models of long-term cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B patients: risk scores integrating host and virus profiles. Hepatology 2013;58(2):546-554 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  59. Wong VW, Chan SL, Mo F, Chan TC, Loong HH, Wong GL, et al. Clinical scoring system to predict hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B carriers. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(10):1660-1665 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  60. Yuen MF, Tanaka Y, Fong DY, Fung J, Wong DK, Yuen JC, et al. Independent risk factors and predictive score for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2009;50(1):80-88 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  61. Fung J, Cheung KS, Wong DK, Mak LY, To WP, Seto WK, et al. Long-term outcomes and predictive scores for hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B surface antigen seroclearance after hepatitis B e-antigen seroclearance. Hepatology 2018;68(2):462-472 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  62. Kim DY, Song KJ, Kim SU, Yoo EJ, Park JY, Ahn SH, et al. Transient elastography-based risk estimation of hepatitis B virus-related occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma: development and validation of a predictive model. Onco Targets Ther 2013;6:1463-1469 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  63. Wong GL, Chan HL, Wong CK, Leung C, Chan CY, Ho PP, et al. Liver stiffness-based optimization of hepatocellular carcinoma risk score in patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2014;60(2):339-345 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  64. Shin SH, Kim SU, Park JY, Kim DY, Ahn SH, Han KH, et al. Liver stiffness-based model for prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B virus infection: comparison with histological fibrosis. Liver Int 2015;35(3):1054-1062 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  65. Poh Z, Shen L, Yang HI, Seto WK, Wong VW, Lin CY, et al. Real-world risk score for hepatocellular carcinoma (RWS-HCC): a clinically practical risk predictor for HCC in chronic hepatitis B. Gut. 2016;65(5):887-888 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  66. Wong GL, Chan HL, Chan HY, Tse PC, Tse YK, Mak CW, et al. Accuracy of risk scores for patients with chronic hepatitis B receiving entecavir treatment. Gastroenterology 2013;144(5):933-944 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  67. Tawada A, Chiba T, Saito T, Ogasawara S, Suzuki E, Ooka Y, et al. Utility of Prediction Scores for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Treated with Nucleos(t)ide Analogues. Oncology 2016;90(4):199-208 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  68. Jeon MY, Lee HW, Kim SU, Kim BK, Park JY, Kim DY, et al. Feasibility of dynamic risk prediction for hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Liver Int. 2018;38(4):676-686 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  69. Kim JH, Kim YD, Lee M, Jun BG, Kim TS, Suk KT, et al. Modified PAGE-B score predicts the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in Asians with chronic hepatitis B on antiviral therapy. J Hepatol 2018;69(5):1066-1073 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  70. Jung KS, Kim SU, Song K, Park JY, Kim DY, Ahn SH, et al. Validation of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma prediction models in the era of antiviral therapy. Hepatology 2015;62(6):1757-1766 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  71. Kim MN, Hwang SG, Rim KS, Kim BK, Park JY, Kim DY, et al. Validation of PAGE-B model in Asian chronic hepatitis B patients receiving entecavir or tenofovir. Liver Int 2017;37(12):1788-1795 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  72. Abu-Amara M, Cerocchi O, Malhi G, Sharma S, Yim C, Shah H, et al. The applicability of hepatocellular carcinoma risk prediction scores in a North American patient population with chronic hepatitis B infection. Gut 2016;65(8):1347-1358 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  73. Iloeje UH, Yang HI, Su J, Jen CL, You SL, Chen CJ, et al. Predicting cirrhosis risk based on the level of circulating hepatitis B viral load. Gastroenterology 2006;130(3):678-686 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  74. Iloeje UH, Yang HI, Jen CL, Su J, Wang LY, You SL, et al. Risk and predictors of mortality associated with chronic hepatitis B infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5(8):921-931 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  75. Lee HW, Yoo EJ, Kim BK, Kim SU, Park JY, Kim DY, et al. Prediction of development of liver-related events by transient elastography in hepatitis B patients with complete virological response on antiviral therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109(8):1241-1249 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  76. Papatheodoridis G, Dalekos G, Sypsa V, Yurdaydin C, Buti M, Goulis J, et al. PAGE-B predicts the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma in Caucasians with chronic hepatitis B on 5-year antiviral therapy. J Hepatol 2016;64(4):800-806 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  77. Sohn W, Cho JY, Kim JH, Lee JI, Kim HJ, Woo MA, et al. Risk score model for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in treatment-naïve patients receiving oral antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis B. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2017;23(2):170-178 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  78. Yu JH, Suh YJ, Jin YJ, Heo NY, Jang JW, You CR, et al. Prediction model for hepatocellular carcinoma risk in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients receiving entecavir/tenofovir. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;31(7):865-872 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  79. Lee HW, Park SY, Lee M, Lee EJ, Lee J, Kim SU, et al. An optimized hepatocellular carcinoma prediction model for chronic hepatitis B with well-controlled viremia. Liver Int 2020;40(7):1736-1743 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  80. Chen CH, Lee CM, Lai HC, Hu TH, Su WP, Lu SN, et al. Prediction model of hepatocellular carcinoma risk in Asian patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with entecavir. Oncotarget 2017;8(54):92431-92441 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  81. Hsu YC, Yip TC, Ho HJ, Wong VW, Huang YT, El-Serag HB, et al. Development of a scoring system to predict hepatocellular carcinoma in Asians on antivirals for chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):278-285 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  82. Yang HI, Yeh ML, Wong GL, Peng CY, Chen CH, Trinh HN, et al. Real-World Effectiveness From the Asia Pacific Rim Liver Consortium for HBV Risk Score for the Prediction of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Treated With Oral Antiviral Therapy. J Infect Dis 2020;221(3):389-399 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  83. Fan R, Papatheodoridis G, Sun J, Innes H, Toyoda H, Xie Q, et al. aMAP risk score predicts hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis. J Hepatol 2020;73(6):1368-1378 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  84. Johnson PJ, Innes H, Hughes DM, Kalyuzhnyy A, Kumada T, Toyoda H. Evaluation of the aMAP score for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: a realistic opportunity to risk stratify. Br J Cancer 2022;127(7):1263-1269 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  85. Innes H, Jepsen P, McDonald S, Dillon J, Hamill V, Yeung A, et al. Performance of models to predict hepatocellular carcinoma risk among UK patients with cirrhosis and cured HCV infection. JHEP Rep 2021;3(6):100384 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  86. Yamashita Y, Joshita S, Sugiura A, Yamazaki T, Kobayashi H, Wakabayashi SI, et al. aMAP score prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma occurrence and incidence-free rate after a sustained virologic response in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatol Res. 2021;51(9):933-942 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  87. Shiha G, Mikhail N, Soliman R. External validation of aMAP risk score in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 4 and cirrhosis who achieved SVR following DAAs. J Hepatol 2021;74(4):994-996 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  88. Yip TC, Wong GL, Wong VW, Tse YK, Liang LY, Hui VW, et al. Reassessing the accuracy of PAGE-B-related scores to predict hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2020;72(5):847-854 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  89. Kim SU, Seo YS, Lee HA, Kim MN, Kim EH, Kim HY, et al. Validation of the CAMD Score in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection Receiving Antiviral Therapy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18(3):693-699.e1 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  90. Kim HY, Lampertico P, Nam JY, Lee HC, Kim SU, Sinn DH, et al. An artificial intelligence model to predict hepatocellular carcinoma risk in Korean and Caucasian patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2022;76(2):311-318 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  91. Brouwer WP, van der Meer AJP, Boonstra A, Plompen EPC, Pas SD, de Knegt RJ, et al. Prediction of long-term clinical outcome in a diverse chronic hepatitis B population: Role of the PAGE-B score. J Viral Hepat 2017;24(11):1023-1031 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  92. Riveiro-Barciela M, Tabernero D, Calleja JL, Lens S, Manzano ML, Rodríguez FG, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of Entecavir or Tenofovir in a Spanish Cohort of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: Validation of the Page-B Score to Predict Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci 2017;62(3):784-793 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  93. Lee HW, Kim SU, Park JY, Kim DY, Ahn SH, Han KH, et al. External validation of the modified PAGE-B score in Asian chronic hepatitis B patients receiving antiviral therapy. Liver Int 2019;39(9):1624-1630 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  94. Yang Y, Zhou Y, Zhang X, Xin Y, Chen Y, Fan Q, et al. Using the aMAP Risk Score to Predict Late Recurrence Following Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chinese Population: A Multicenter Study. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2021;8:837-850 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  95. Sun Y, Li Z, Liao G, Xia M, Xu X, Cai S, et al. aMAP Score as a Predictor for Long-Term Outcomes in Patients with HBV-Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure. Int J Gen Med 2022;15:407-415 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  96. Li XH, Hao X, Deng YH, Liu XQ, Liu HY, Zhou FY, et al. [Application of aMAP score to assess the risk of hepatocarciongenesis in population of chronic liver disease in primary hospitals]. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi 2021;29(4):332-337 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  97. The ASSIGN Score (Version 1.5.1). Available from: https://www.assign-score.com/ View Article PubMed/NCBI
  98. Prediction Tools - A Tool for Doctors and Patients. Available from: https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms View Article PubMed/NCBI

Copyright © 2022 Authors. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License (CC BY-NC 4.0), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology
  • pISSN 2225-0719
  • eISSN 2310-8819

Download PDF

Metrics

Article accesses:
4029

Citation

Order Reprints
  • Copyright © 2022 JCTH. All Rights Reserved.
  • Published by Xia & He Publishing Inc.
  • Address: 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300, Sugar Land, Texas 77478, USA
  • Email: service@xiahepublishing.com