Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma—or primary liver cancer—was found to have significant limitations in two recent studies. According to News-Medical.net, randomized studies of hepatocellular carcinoma screening are not feasible because most patients prefer surveillance over non-screening. Additionally, screening for liver cancer at three-month intervals versus six-month intervals did not improve detection of small liver cancers.
The first study was conducted by researchers from the University of Sydney in Australia, and considered the possibility of undertaking a randomized control trial of liver cancer surveillance. Study participants, however, overwhelmingly elected to decline randomization, with 88 percent choosing to have a non-randomized screening program.
That makes studying the efficacy of cancer surveillance difficult, lead researcher Jacob George noted.
“While a randomized controlled trial is ideal to assess the success of a cancer surveillance program, we found that patients with cirrhosis declined randomization due to possible allocation to a non-screening group,” George said.
The second study looked at the benefits of receiving liver cancer screenings every three months as opposed to every six months, and was conducted by a team of French and Belgian researchers. While the cancer screenings did find more focal lesions if conducted every three months, they failed to detect liver cancer at an earlier stage.
Lead researcher Jean-Claude Trinchet said that small tumors are especially difficult to find with ultrasonographic surveillance, and the team’s findings may suggest a need for a new form of cancer surveillance.
Hepatocellular carcinoma is the sixth most common cancer worldwide, and caused about 20,000 deaths in 2011, the National Cancer Institute estimated.
