PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

Lisa Quirk

Publications and source records attributed to Lisa Quirk.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Pandemic-Related Disruptions and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in Safety-Net Settings.

IMPORTANCE: Pandemic-related disruptions in cirrhosis care resulted in major gaps and delays in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether these initial declines improved and rebounded to prepandemic levels remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate contemporary clinical practice data on HCC surveillance utilization from before the COVID-19 pandemic to 4 years after the onset of the pandemic among safety-net populations with cirrhosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 5 safety-net health systems in the US. Adults with cirrhosis were evaluated longitudinally across 3 time periods: March 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (pre-COVID-19 period), March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022 (COVID-19 era), and March 1, 2022, to February 29, 2024 (post-COVID-19 period). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was undergoing HCC surveillance identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes for ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, and corresponding International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes for indication. Comparisons of HCC surveillance across time periods used paired t tests, and comparisons of HCC surveillance between subgroups within the same time period used χ2 tests. RESULTS: Among 6940 patients with cirrhosis, 4001 (57.7%) were men (median [IQR] age, 58 [52-64] years), 206 (3.0%) were Asian, 1720 (24.8%) were Hispanic, 1672 (24.1%) were non-Hispanic Black or African American, and 3081 (44.4%) were non-Hispanic White. The proportion who underwent HCC surveillance within 6 months after diagnosis was 30.8% (1940 patients) in the pre-COVID-19 era, which declined to 21.1% (1468 patients) in the COVID-19 era, and remained at 22.3% (1405 patients) in the post-COVID-19 era. Consistent trends were observed among men and women and among all age and race groups, except for Asian individuals, for whom there was an observed increase in the post-COVID-19 era. Similar trends of low HCC surveillance post-COVID-19 were observed across insurance types but was particularly concerning among uninsured or indigent care covered patients, among whom only 116 of 997 (11.9%) underwent surveillance in the most recent period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this observational study of US safety-net populations with cirrhosis, rates of HCC surveillance following pandemic-related declines remained persistently low even up to 4 years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer than 1 in 4 patients having undergone guideline-concordant HCC surveillance.

Humans

Value of HCC surveillance in a landscape of emerging surveillance options: Perspectives of a multi-stakeholder modified Delphi panel.

HCC surveillance is recommended by liver professional societies but lacks broad acceptance by several primary care and cancer societies due to limitations in the existing data. We convened a diverse multidisciplinary group of cancer screening experts to evaluate current and future paradigms of HCC prevention and early detection using a rigorous Delphi panel approach. The experts had high agreement on 21 statements about primary prevention, HCC surveillance benefits, HCC surveillance harms, and the evaluation of emerging surveillance modalities. The experts agreed that current data have methodologic limitations as well as unclear generalizability to Western populations. Although a randomized clinical trial of surveillance versus no surveillance is unlikely feasible, they concurred that alternative designs, such as a comparison of 2 surveillance modalities, could provide indirect evidence of surveillance efficacy. The panel acknowledged the presence of surveillance harms, but concurred the overall value of surveillance appears high, particularly given a greater emphasis on benefits over harms by both patients and clinicians. The experts underscored the importance of a framework for measuring both benefits and harms when evaluating emerging surveillance strategies. The panel acknowledged performance metrics of emerging methods may differ from other cancer screening programs given differences in populations, including higher risk of cancer development and competing risk of morality, and differences in diagnostic workflow in patients at risk of HCC. These data provide insights into the perceived value of HCC surveillance in an era of emerging blood- and imaging-based surveillance strategies.

Humans