Parallel 37: Hepatitis C: Pre‐Approval Clinical Studies II

Fulya Günşar,İlker Turan,Galip Ersöz,Zeki Karasu,Ömer Özütemiz,Eric Lawitz,Fred Poordad,Robert H. Hyland,Lin Liu,Hadas Dvory,Phillip S. Pang,Diana M. Brainard,Julio Gutiérrez,Julio Guti- Errez,Paul Y. Kwo,Michael Bennett,Stanley Wang,Hugo E. Vargas,David Wyles,J Overcash,Peter Ruane,Benedict Maliakkal,Asma Siddique,Bal R. Bhandari,Ran Liu,Chih-Wei Lin,Teresa I. Ng,Federico Mensa,Jens Kort,Daniela Sia,Andrew Harrington,Zhongyang Zhang,Genís Campreciós,Sara Toffanin,Agrin Moeini,M. Isabel Fiel,Ke Hao,Mónica Higuera,Oriana Miltiadous,Laia Cabellos,Helena Cornellà,Yujin Hoshida,Sander Florman,Myron Schwarz,Josep M. Llovet
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.28207
IF: 17.298
2015-01-01
Hepatology
Abstract:Three hundred forty-one patients were on lamivudine, 60 were on adefovir, 188 were on entecavir, 467 were on tenofovir, and 32 were on combination therapies.ROC analysis for the predictive values of HCC scores showed that AUROC values were 0.804 for CU-HCC, 0.809 for REACH-B and 0.882 for GAG-HCC.These values were similar in patients without therapy and with entecavir and tenofovir therapies as in the literature.The most predictive GAG-HCC score had sensitivity of 97.3% and negative predictive value of 99.9%.Conclusion: In this large cohort of Caucasian HBV patients, all of these scores had good predictive values for HCC development both in patients on treatment and in patients who did not receive antiviral treatment.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?