Usefulness of Circulating Methylated p16 as a Noninvasive Molecular Biomarker for Hepatitis C-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Normal Serum Alpha-Fetoprotein Levels

Biomarkers for diagnosis and therapeutic options in hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver cancer is a global health challenge, causing a significant social-economic burden. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the predominant type of primary liver cancer, which is highly heterogeneous in terms of molecular and cellular signatures. Early-stage or small tumors are typically treated with surgery or ablation. Currently, chemotherapies and immunotherapies are the best treatments for unresectable tumors or advanced HCC. However, drug response and acquired resistance are not predictable with the existing systematic guidelines regarding mutation patterns and molecular biomarkers, resulting in sub-optimal treatment outcomes for many patients with atypical molecular profiles. With advanced technological platforms, valuable information such as tumor genetic alterations, epigenetic data, and tumor microenvironments can be obtained from liquid biopsy. The inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity of HCC are illustrated, and these collective data provide solid evidence in the decision-making process of treatment regimens. This article reviews the current understanding of HCC detection methods and aims to update the development of HCC surveillance using liquid biopsy. Recent critical findings on the molecular basis, epigenetic profiles, circulating tumor cells, circulating DNAs, and omics studies are elaborated for HCC diagnosis. Besides, biomarkers related to the choice of therapeutic options are discussed. Some notable recent clinical trials working on targeted therapies are also highlighted. Insights are provided to translate the knowledge into potential biomarkers for detection and diagnosis, prognosis, treatment response, and drug resistance indicators in clinical practice.

Integrative bioinformatics and experimental analysis revealed TEAD as novel prognostic target for hepatocellular carcinoma and its roles in ferroptosis regulation

OBJECTIVE

Transcriptional enhanced associate domain (TEAD) family consists of four members TEAD1/2/3/4 that regulate cell growth, stem cell functions and organ development. As the downstream of Hippo signaling pathway, TEAD family is involved in the progression of several cancers. However, the precise biology functions of TEAD family in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have not been reported yet.

METHODS

We apply bioinformatics analysis based on databases including UALCAN, Oncomine, GEPIA, Kaplan-Meier plotter, WebGestalt, cBioPortal, TIMER2.0, and in vitro experimental evidence to identify the exact roles of TEAD family in HCC.

RESULTS

The results indicated that TEAD2/4 were significantly upregulated in HCC compared with normal tissues. Downregulated of TEAD2 could promote the death of HCC cells through inducing ferroptosis by iron accumulation and subsequent oxidative damage. According to the Kaplan-Meier plotter database, we found that the high expression of TEAD2 was significantly associated with poor disease-specific survival, overall survival, progression-free survival and relapse-free survival. In aspect of cancer immunity, Tumor Immune Estimation Resource algorithm showed that the expression of TEAD family members was obviously related to multiple of infiltrating immune cells including macrophages, neutrophils, dendritic cells, B cells, CD8+ T cells and CD4+ T cells. Finally, we conducted the functional enrichment analysis including protein-protein interaction network, gene ontology enrichment analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway based on the TEAD family-associated coexpression genes.

CONCLUSION

The study provided deep insight information of TEAD family in the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of HCC patients.

Abdominal ultrasound and alpha-foetoprotein for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global instances of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer deaths for men. Despite that abdominal ultrasound (US) is used as an initial test to exclude the presence of focal liver lesions and serum alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) measurement may raise suspicion of HCC occurrence, further testing to confirm diagnosis as well as staging of HCC is required. Current guidelines recommend surveillance programme using US, with or without AFP, to detect HCC in high-risk populations despite the lack of clear benefits on overall survival. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP may clarify whether the absence of benefit in surveillance programmes could be related to under-diagnosis. Therefore, assessment of the accuracy of these two tests for diagnosing HCC in people with chronic liver disease, not included in surveillance programmes, is needed.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP, alone or in combination, for the diagnosis of HCC of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, either in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal US and AFP, alone or in combination, for the diagnosis of resectable HCC; to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the individual tests versus the combination of both tests; to investigate sources of heterogeneity in the results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Diagnostic-Test-Accuracy Studies Register, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, until 5 June 2020. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of US and AFP, independently or in combination, for the diagnosis of HCC in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional and case-control designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver, histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion, or typical characteristics on computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging, all with a six-months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest-plots, and tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 373 studies. The index-test was AFP (326 studies, 144,570 participants); US (39 studies, 18,792 participants); and a combination of AFP and US (eight studies, 5454 participants). We judged at high-risk of bias all but one study. Most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time-interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Most studies with AFP had a case-control design. We also had major concerns for the applicability due to the characteristics of the participants. As the primary studies with AFP used different cut-offs, we performed a meta-analysis using the hierarchical-summary-receiver-operating-characteristic model, then we carried out two meta-analyses including only studies reporting the most used cut-offs: around 20 ng/mL or 200 ng/mL. AFP cut-off 20 ng/mL: for HCC (147 studies) sensitivity 60% (95% CI 58% to 62%), specificity 84% (95% CI 82% to 86%); for resectable HCC (six studies) sensitivity 65% (95% CI 62% to 68%), specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 91%). AFP cut-off 200 ng/mL: for HCC (56 studies) sensitivity 36% (95% CI 31% to 41%), specificity 99% (95% CI 98% to 99%); for resectable HCC (two studies) one with sensitivity 4% (95% CI 0% to 19%), specificity 100% (95% CI 96% to 100%), and one with sensitivity 8% (95% CI 3% to 18%), specificity 100% (95% CI 97% to 100%). US: for HCC (39 studies) sensitivity 72% (95% CI 63% to 79%), specificity 94% (95% CI 91% to 96%); for resectable HCC (seven studies) sensitivity 53% (95% CI 38% to 67%), specificity 96% (95% CI 94% to 97%). Combination of AFP (cut-off of 20 ng/mL) and US: for HCC (six studies) sensitivity 96% (95% CI 88% to 98%), specificity 85% (95% CI 73% to 93%); for resectable HCC (two studies) one with sensitivity 89% (95% CI 73% to 97%), specificity of 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%), and one with sensitivity 79% (95% CI 54% to 94%), specificity 87% (95% CI 79% to 94%). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained, and only in part referable to different cut-offs or settings (surveillance programme compared to clinical series). The sensitivity analyses, excluding studies published as abstracts, or with case-control design, showed no variation in the results. We compared the accuracy obtained from studies with AFP (cut-off around 20 ng/mL) and US: a direct comparison in 11 studies (6674 participants) showed a higher sensitivity of US (81%, 95% CI 66% to 90%) versus AFP (64%, 95% CI 56% to 71%) with similar specificity: US 92% (95% CI 83% to 97%) versus AFP 89% (95% CI 79% to 94%). A direct comparison of six studies (5044 participants) showed a higher sensitivity (96%, 95% CI 88% to 98%) of the combination of AFP and US versus US (76%, 95% CI 56% to 89%) with similar specificity: AFP and US 85% (95% CI 73% to 92%) versus US 93% (95% CI 80% to 98%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of HCC in adults, AFP and US, singularly or in combination, have the role of triage-tests. We found that using AFP, with 20 ng/mL as a cut-off, about 40% of HCC occurrences would be missed, and with US alone, more than a quarter. The combination of the two tests showed the highest sensitivity and less than 5% of HCC occurrences would be missed with about 15% of false-positive results. The uncertainty resulting from the poor study quality and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.