Feasibility of conducting a randomized control trial for liver cancer screening: Is a randomized controlled trial for liver cancer screening feasible or still needed?
Open Access
- 2 December 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Hepatology
- Vol. 54 (6), 1998-2004
- https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24581
Abstract
Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is commonly practiced and recommended in published guidelines, but evidence for its efficacy has been controversial. We tested the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis and followed up those offered screening to detect clinical outcomes. Participation was offered to patients with cirrhosis attending liver clinics at three university hospitals. Following discussion, patients received a decision aid (DA) that outlined the risks and benefits of surveillance. The proposed screening program comprised ultrasonography 6-monthly and serum alpha-fetoprotein every 3 months. We envisaged five groups of patients: those who agreed to randomization, those choosing nonrandomized screening, those wanting continuation of usual care, those who were undecided, and those refusing participation. Among 205 patients, 204 (99.5%) declined randomization. Of these, 181 (88%) elected for a nonrandomized screening program, 10% chose usual care (which typically included ad hoc screening), and two were undecided. Among 176 patients fluent in English communication skills, 160 (91%) preferred nonrandomized screening compared with 22/29 (76%) patients needing an interpreter ( P < 0.026). Of 173 patients in nonrandomized screening followed up for a mean 13.5 ± 6.04 months, three developed HCC, two died from nonliver-related causes, and one underwent liver transplantation for liver failure. Eighteen of 21 patients in “usual care” received ad hoc screening. A simultaneous survey on the quality of the DA showed that the majority of participants believed that the information provided was unbiased. Conclusion: Although an RCT is theoretically ideal for determining the efficacy, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of HCC screening, informed patients prefer surveillance. A randomized study of HCC screening is not feasible when informed consent is imparted. (Hepatology 2011;)This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma: Good enough but best yet to comeJournal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2010
- Application of surveillance programs for hepatocellular carcinoma in the Asia–Pacific RegionJournal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2009
- Major achievements in hepatocellular carcinomaThe Lancet, 2009
- Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma *Hepatology, 2005
- Global Cancer Statistics, 2002CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2005
- The Continuing Increase in the Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United States: An UpdateAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2003
- Experience of 1000 patients who underwent hepatectomy for small hepatocellular carcinomaCancer, 2001
- Early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma increases the chance of treatment: Hong Kong experienceHepatology, 2000
- Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statementBMJ, 1996
- Solitary minute hepatocellular carcinoma. A study of 14 patientsCancer, 1991