User login
, based to a recent phase 3 biomarker validation study.
The Prognostic Liver Secretome Signature with Alpha-Fetoprotein plus Age, Male Sex, Albumin-Bilirubin, and Platelets (PAaM) score integrates both molecular and clinical variables to effectively classify cirrhosis patients by their risk of developing HCC, potentially sparing low-risk patients from unnecessary surveillance, lead author Naoto Fujiwara, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues reported.
“Hepatocellular carcinoma risk stratification is an urgent unmet need for cost-effective screening and early detection in patients with cirrhosis,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “This study represents the largest and first phase 3 biomarker validation study that establishes an integrative molecular/clinical score, PAaM, for HCC risk stratification.”
The PAaM score combines an 8-protein prognostic liver secretome signature with traditional clinical variables, including alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, age, sex, albumin-bilirubin levels, and platelet counts. The score stratifies patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk categories.
The PAaM score was validated using 2 independent prospective cohorts in the United States: the statewide Texas Hepatocellular Carcinoma Consortium (THCCC) and the nationwide Hepatocellular Carcinoma Early Detection Strategy (HEDS). Across both cohorts, 3,484 patients with cirrhosis were followed over time to assess the development of HCC.
In the Texas cohort, comprising 2,156 patients with cirrhosis, PAaM classified 19% of patients as high risk, 42% as intermediate risk, and 39% as low risk. The annual incidence of HCC was significantly different across these groups, with high-risk patients experiencing a 5.3% incidence rate, versus 2.7% for intermediate-risk patients and 0.6% for low-risk patients (P less than .001). Compared with those in the low-risk group, high-risk patients had sub-distribution hazard ratio (sHR) of 7.51 for developing HCC, while intermediate-risk patients had an sHR of 4.20.
In the nationwide HEDS cohort, which included 1,328 patients, PAaM similarly stratified 15% of participants as high risk, 41% as intermediate risk, and 44% as low risk. Annual HCC incidence rates were 6.2%, 1.8%, and 0.8% for high-, intermediate-, and low-risk patients, respectively (P less than .001). Among these patients, sub-distribution hazard ratios for HCC were 6.54 for high-risk patients and 1.77 for intermediate-risk patients, again underscoring the tool’s potential to identify individuals at elevated risk of developing HCC.
The PAaM score outperformed existing models like the aMAP score and the PLSec-AFP molecular marker alone, with consistent superiority across a diverse range of cirrhosis etiologies, including metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), and cured hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.
Based on these findings, high-risk patients might benefit from more intensive screening strategies, Fujiwara and colleagues suggested, while intermediate-risk patients could continue with semi-annual ultrasound-based screening. Of note, low-risk patients—comprising about 40% of the study population—could potentially avoid frequent screenings, thus reducing healthcare costs and minimizing unnecessary interventions.
“This represents a significant step toward the clinical translation of an individual risk-based HCC screening strategy to improve early HCC detection and reduce HCC mortality,” the investigators concluded.This study was supported by various the National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Boston Scientific, Sirtex, Bayer, and others.
Nancy S. Reau, MD, AGAF, of RUSH University in Chicago, highlighted both the promise and challenges of the PAaM score for HCC risk stratification, emphasizing that current liver cancer screening strategies remain inadequate, with only about 25% of patients receiving guideline-recommended surveillance.
“An easy-to-apply cost effective tool could significantly improve screening strategies, which should lead to earlier identification of liver cancer—at a time when curative treatment options are available,” Reau said.
PAaM, however, may be impractical for routine use.
“A tool that classifies people into 3 different screening strategies and requires longitudinal applications and re-classification could add complexity,” she explained, predicting that “clinicians aren’t going to use it correctly.
Reau was particularly concerned about the need for repeated assessments over time.
“People change,” she said. “A low-risk categorization by PAaM at the age of 40 may no longer be relevant at 50 or 60 as liver disease progresses.”
Although the tool is “exciting,” Reau suggested that it is also “premature” until appropriate reclassification intervals are understood.
She also noted that some patients still develop HCC despite being considered low risk, including cases of HCC that develop in non-cirrhotic HCV infection or MASLD.
Beyond the above clinical considerations, Dr. Reau pointed out several barriers to implementing PAaM in routine practice, starting with the under-recognition of cirrhosis. Even if patients are identified, ensuring both clinicians and patients adhere to screening recommendations remains a challenge.
Finally, financial considerations may pose obstacles.
“If some payers cover the tool and others do not, it will be very difficult to implement,” Dr. Reau concluded.
Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
Nancy S. Reau, MD, AGAF, of RUSH University in Chicago, highlighted both the promise and challenges of the PAaM score for HCC risk stratification, emphasizing that current liver cancer screening strategies remain inadequate, with only about 25% of patients receiving guideline-recommended surveillance.
“An easy-to-apply cost effective tool could significantly improve screening strategies, which should lead to earlier identification of liver cancer—at a time when curative treatment options are available,” Reau said.
PAaM, however, may be impractical for routine use.
“A tool that classifies people into 3 different screening strategies and requires longitudinal applications and re-classification could add complexity,” she explained, predicting that “clinicians aren’t going to use it correctly.
Reau was particularly concerned about the need for repeated assessments over time.
“People change,” she said. “A low-risk categorization by PAaM at the age of 40 may no longer be relevant at 50 or 60 as liver disease progresses.”
Although the tool is “exciting,” Reau suggested that it is also “premature” until appropriate reclassification intervals are understood.
She also noted that some patients still develop HCC despite being considered low risk, including cases of HCC that develop in non-cirrhotic HCV infection or MASLD.
Beyond the above clinical considerations, Dr. Reau pointed out several barriers to implementing PAaM in routine practice, starting with the under-recognition of cirrhosis. Even if patients are identified, ensuring both clinicians and patients adhere to screening recommendations remains a challenge.
Finally, financial considerations may pose obstacles.
“If some payers cover the tool and others do not, it will be very difficult to implement,” Dr. Reau concluded.
Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
Nancy S. Reau, MD, AGAF, of RUSH University in Chicago, highlighted both the promise and challenges of the PAaM score for HCC risk stratification, emphasizing that current liver cancer screening strategies remain inadequate, with only about 25% of patients receiving guideline-recommended surveillance.
“An easy-to-apply cost effective tool could significantly improve screening strategies, which should lead to earlier identification of liver cancer—at a time when curative treatment options are available,” Reau said.
PAaM, however, may be impractical for routine use.
“A tool that classifies people into 3 different screening strategies and requires longitudinal applications and re-classification could add complexity,” she explained, predicting that “clinicians aren’t going to use it correctly.
Reau was particularly concerned about the need for repeated assessments over time.
“People change,” she said. “A low-risk categorization by PAaM at the age of 40 may no longer be relevant at 50 or 60 as liver disease progresses.”
Although the tool is “exciting,” Reau suggested that it is also “premature” until appropriate reclassification intervals are understood.
She also noted that some patients still develop HCC despite being considered low risk, including cases of HCC that develop in non-cirrhotic HCV infection or MASLD.
Beyond the above clinical considerations, Dr. Reau pointed out several barriers to implementing PAaM in routine practice, starting with the under-recognition of cirrhosis. Even if patients are identified, ensuring both clinicians and patients adhere to screening recommendations remains a challenge.
Finally, financial considerations may pose obstacles.
“If some payers cover the tool and others do not, it will be very difficult to implement,” Dr. Reau concluded.
Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
, based to a recent phase 3 biomarker validation study.
The Prognostic Liver Secretome Signature with Alpha-Fetoprotein plus Age, Male Sex, Albumin-Bilirubin, and Platelets (PAaM) score integrates both molecular and clinical variables to effectively classify cirrhosis patients by their risk of developing HCC, potentially sparing low-risk patients from unnecessary surveillance, lead author Naoto Fujiwara, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues reported.
“Hepatocellular carcinoma risk stratification is an urgent unmet need for cost-effective screening and early detection in patients with cirrhosis,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “This study represents the largest and first phase 3 biomarker validation study that establishes an integrative molecular/clinical score, PAaM, for HCC risk stratification.”
The PAaM score combines an 8-protein prognostic liver secretome signature with traditional clinical variables, including alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, age, sex, albumin-bilirubin levels, and platelet counts. The score stratifies patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk categories.
The PAaM score was validated using 2 independent prospective cohorts in the United States: the statewide Texas Hepatocellular Carcinoma Consortium (THCCC) and the nationwide Hepatocellular Carcinoma Early Detection Strategy (HEDS). Across both cohorts, 3,484 patients with cirrhosis were followed over time to assess the development of HCC.
In the Texas cohort, comprising 2,156 patients with cirrhosis, PAaM classified 19% of patients as high risk, 42% as intermediate risk, and 39% as low risk. The annual incidence of HCC was significantly different across these groups, with high-risk patients experiencing a 5.3% incidence rate, versus 2.7% for intermediate-risk patients and 0.6% for low-risk patients (P less than .001). Compared with those in the low-risk group, high-risk patients had sub-distribution hazard ratio (sHR) of 7.51 for developing HCC, while intermediate-risk patients had an sHR of 4.20.
In the nationwide HEDS cohort, which included 1,328 patients, PAaM similarly stratified 15% of participants as high risk, 41% as intermediate risk, and 44% as low risk. Annual HCC incidence rates were 6.2%, 1.8%, and 0.8% for high-, intermediate-, and low-risk patients, respectively (P less than .001). Among these patients, sub-distribution hazard ratios for HCC were 6.54 for high-risk patients and 1.77 for intermediate-risk patients, again underscoring the tool’s potential to identify individuals at elevated risk of developing HCC.
The PAaM score outperformed existing models like the aMAP score and the PLSec-AFP molecular marker alone, with consistent superiority across a diverse range of cirrhosis etiologies, including metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), and cured hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.
Based on these findings, high-risk patients might benefit from more intensive screening strategies, Fujiwara and colleagues suggested, while intermediate-risk patients could continue with semi-annual ultrasound-based screening. Of note, low-risk patients—comprising about 40% of the study population—could potentially avoid frequent screenings, thus reducing healthcare costs and minimizing unnecessary interventions.
“This represents a significant step toward the clinical translation of an individual risk-based HCC screening strategy to improve early HCC detection and reduce HCC mortality,” the investigators concluded.This study was supported by various the National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Boston Scientific, Sirtex, Bayer, and others.
, based to a recent phase 3 biomarker validation study.
The Prognostic Liver Secretome Signature with Alpha-Fetoprotein plus Age, Male Sex, Albumin-Bilirubin, and Platelets (PAaM) score integrates both molecular and clinical variables to effectively classify cirrhosis patients by their risk of developing HCC, potentially sparing low-risk patients from unnecessary surveillance, lead author Naoto Fujiwara, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues reported.
“Hepatocellular carcinoma risk stratification is an urgent unmet need for cost-effective screening and early detection in patients with cirrhosis,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “This study represents the largest and first phase 3 biomarker validation study that establishes an integrative molecular/clinical score, PAaM, for HCC risk stratification.”
The PAaM score combines an 8-protein prognostic liver secretome signature with traditional clinical variables, including alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, age, sex, albumin-bilirubin levels, and platelet counts. The score stratifies patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk categories.
The PAaM score was validated using 2 independent prospective cohorts in the United States: the statewide Texas Hepatocellular Carcinoma Consortium (THCCC) and the nationwide Hepatocellular Carcinoma Early Detection Strategy (HEDS). Across both cohorts, 3,484 patients with cirrhosis were followed over time to assess the development of HCC.
In the Texas cohort, comprising 2,156 patients with cirrhosis, PAaM classified 19% of patients as high risk, 42% as intermediate risk, and 39% as low risk. The annual incidence of HCC was significantly different across these groups, with high-risk patients experiencing a 5.3% incidence rate, versus 2.7% for intermediate-risk patients and 0.6% for low-risk patients (P less than .001). Compared with those in the low-risk group, high-risk patients had sub-distribution hazard ratio (sHR) of 7.51 for developing HCC, while intermediate-risk patients had an sHR of 4.20.
In the nationwide HEDS cohort, which included 1,328 patients, PAaM similarly stratified 15% of participants as high risk, 41% as intermediate risk, and 44% as low risk. Annual HCC incidence rates were 6.2%, 1.8%, and 0.8% for high-, intermediate-, and low-risk patients, respectively (P less than .001). Among these patients, sub-distribution hazard ratios for HCC were 6.54 for high-risk patients and 1.77 for intermediate-risk patients, again underscoring the tool’s potential to identify individuals at elevated risk of developing HCC.
The PAaM score outperformed existing models like the aMAP score and the PLSec-AFP molecular marker alone, with consistent superiority across a diverse range of cirrhosis etiologies, including metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), and cured hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.
Based on these findings, high-risk patients might benefit from more intensive screening strategies, Fujiwara and colleagues suggested, while intermediate-risk patients could continue with semi-annual ultrasound-based screening. Of note, low-risk patients—comprising about 40% of the study population—could potentially avoid frequent screenings, thus reducing healthcare costs and minimizing unnecessary interventions.
“This represents a significant step toward the clinical translation of an individual risk-based HCC screening strategy to improve early HCC detection and reduce HCC mortality,” the investigators concluded.This study was supported by various the National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Boston Scientific, Sirtex, Bayer, and others.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY