IDDF2020-ABS-0057 Risk of incident hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) virus-infected patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) versus entecavir (ETV): a US administrative claims analysis

Entecavir versus tenofovir in patients with chronic hepatitis B: Enemies or partners in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma

“…A study published as a collection of meeting abstracts analyzed the U.S. administrative data comparing TDF and ETV treatments in terms of the risk of HCC in treatment-naïve patients with CHB [ 30 ]. In this study, the absolute rate of HCC was lower in those treated with TDF (0.32 person year [PY]) than in those treated with ETV (0.61 PY).…”

“…In this study, the absolute rate of HCC was lower in those treated with TDF (0.32 person year [PY]) than in those treated with ETV (0.61 PY). In addition, multivariable analysis and weighting by propensity score showed that treatment with TDF was associated with a significantly decreased risk of HCC occurrence (aHR, 0.56; 95% CIs, 0.37–0.86) [ 30 ].…”

Is Tenofovir Superior to Entecavir in Reducing the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chronic Hepatitis B? The Controversy Continues

“…10 At variance, a recent US study demonstrated that, after adjustment of baseline variables and PS weighting, TDF (6145 patients) was associated with significantly decreased risk of HCC compared with ETV therapy (4060 patients) (HR, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.86). 11 In summary, whether patients treated with TDF have a lower risk of HCC compared with those treated with ETV remains unsettled, because different studies, even from the same country, reached opposite conclusions. 12,13 The only exception is Europe, where 2 large independent studies reported no difference in the HCC risk between the 2 agents.…”

“…Overall, these studies support a very high diseasespecific-5 year survival for patients with low risk BD-IPMNs (without worrisome features [WF]) in the realm of 96%-98%, the persistent and often late (after 5 years) risk of developing WFs and even high-risk stigmata in otherwise low-risk IPMNs (about 5%), the late persistence of the risk of cancer (0%-4%) after 5 and 10 years of surveillance, and the potential value of using baseline cyst size or cyst rate of growth to predict progression of morphology and cancer in the setting of IPMN. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] However, the issue of stopping surveillance after pancreatic cyst stability during the initial 5 years has been more difficult to study. Even defining cyst stability is challenging, and varies from study to study.…”

“…13 Of 412 patients with presumed BD-IPMN radiographic stability over 5 years of surveillance, 19% still had evidence of future growth and 1% developed carcinoma, with the observed rate of cancer development of nearly 6 times greater than what would be expected in the general population. 11 The term "trivial BD-IPMN" was recently used in a separate study, to define 378 patients…”