Abstract:Background and aim: Diagnosing high-risk varices (HRV) is crucial for determining the prognosis and treatment strategy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although the Baveno VI consensus guidelines have been validated for assessing HRV in patients with liver cirrhosis, their applicability to those with HCC remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Baveno VI criteria in screening for HRV in patients with HCC. Methods: We searched for English-language articles related to Baveno criteria and HCC across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, covering publications from their inception until April 19, 2024. Our meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14.0 and Meta-Disc 1.4 software. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We analyzed pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) using a random-effects model and constructed a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Based on established consensus, the favorable Baveno VI criteria were defined as a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) 150×10 9 /L to exclude HRV. This study is registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024533946. Results: We finally brought four studies, including 1277 patients with HCC, into this meta-analysis. The SEN, SPE, DOR, and AUC of favorable Baveno VI criteria in screening HRV in patients with HCC were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81–0.95), 0.33 (95% CI: 0.25–0.41), 4.44 (95% CI: 2.14–9.22), and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.55–0.64), respectively. The LR+ and LR- of the favorable Baveno VI criteria were 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19–1.50) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.16–0.58), respectively. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that BCLC and Child-Pugh stages likely contribute to the heterogeneity in the SPE. Conclusions: The favorable Baveno VI criteria may not effectively screen HRV in patients with HCC. However, the current evidence is insufficient, and further studies with larger sample sizes and detailed patient subgroups are needed. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024533946.

Reply to Allaire, M.; Thabut, D. Comment on "Wu et al. Baveno VII Criteria Is an Accurate Risk Stratification Tool to Predict High-Risk Varices Requiring Intervention and Hepatic Events in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers 2023, 15, 2480"

Letter to the Editor: Risk Stratification in Patients with Child‐Pugh B Cirrhosis and Acute Variceal Bleeding

Letter to the Editor: Risk Stratification in Patients With Child-Pugh B Cirrhosis and Acute Variceal Bleeding

Reply to ‘how to Select Eligible Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus for Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation?’

Corrigendum to 'an International Genome-Wide Meta-Analysis of Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Novel Risk Loci and Candidate Drugs' [J Hepatol 2021;75(3):572-581].

Reply to Huang Et Al.

Corrigendum To: "an International Genome-Wide Meta-Analysis of Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Novel Risk Loci and Candidate Drugs" [J Hepatol 75 (2021) 572-581].

Correction: Zhang et al. Clinical Management of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Review of the Current Diagnosis and Treatment. Cancers 2023, 15, 5011

Reply to Itagaki et al. Comment on "Dorobisz et al. Assessment of Prognostic Factors, Clinical Features Including the Microbiome, and Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary Site. Cancers 2024, 16, 3416"

Corrigendum to “circumventing Intratumoral Heterogeneity to Identify Potential Therapeutic Targets in Hepatocellular Carcinoma” [J Hepatol 67 (2017) 293–301]

Editorial: Redrawing the Boundaries for Surgical Intervention in Hepatocellular Carcinoma—authors’ Reply

Corrigendum to 'genomic Sequencing Identifies WNK2 As a Driver in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and a Risk Factor for Early Recurrence' [J Hepatol 71 (2019) 1152-63].

Corrigendum to "MR Features Based on LI-RADS Identify Cytokeratin 19 Status of Hepatocellular Carcinomas" [eur. J. Radiol. 113 (2019) 7-14].

Corrigendum: A comprehensive analysis of HAVCR1 as a prognostic and diagnostic marker for pan-cancer

Reply to ‘Are the 5-hydroxymethylcytosine-based wd-scores really superior over α-fetoprotein for the early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma?’

Meta-analysis: accuracy of the Baveno VI criteria for the diagnosis of high-risk varices in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Corrigendum Re "genetic Variants Related to Longer Telomere Length Are Associated with Increased Risk of Renal Cell Carcinoma" [eur Urol 2017;72:747-54].

Comparative analysis of subclassification models in patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (BCLC B) receiving systemic therapy

Comparative Analysis of Subclassification Systems in Patients with Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Classification B) Receiving Systemic Therapy

Response to Chen et al and the Accompanying Commentary

Letter: hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with non‐selective beta blockers—authors' reply