Liver function changes after transarterial chemoembolization in US hepatocellular carcinoma patients: The LiverT study

Background: The real-world incidence of chronic liver damage after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is unclear. LiverT, a retrospective, observational study, assessed liver function deterioration after a single TACE in real-world hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients in US practice. Methods: Eligible HCC patients identified from Optum's integrated database using standard codes as having had an index TACE between 2010 and 2016 with no additional oncologic therapy in the subsequent 3 months. At least one laboratory value (bilirubin, albumin, aspartate transaminase [AST], alanine transaminase [ALT], international normalized ratio [INR]) was required at baseline and the acute ( 6429 days after TACE) and chronic (30-90 days after TACE) periods. Due to lack of universally accepted liver function deterioration criteria, clinically meaningful changes in laboratory parameters were pre-defined by authors (FP, RM, and SO). Results: Of the 3963 TACE patients, 572 were eligible for analyses. Deterioration of liver function from baseline occurred in the acute period and persisted in the chronic period (bilirubin 30 and 23%, albumin 52 and 31%, AST 44 and 25%, ALT 43 and 25%, INR 25 and 15%, respectively). In a subgroup analysis, a higher proportion of patients with diabetes had deterioration in AST and ALT. Conclusions: A clinically meaningful proportion of real-world HCC patients had deterioration of liver function-related laboratory values 30-90 days after a single TACE in modern US practice. Future electronic health record research may help determine causality. The present findings highlight the need for the careful selection of patients for TACE, which is important to help optimize the benefit of the overall HCC treatment course

When Can We Rely on Real‐World Evidence to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?

Concerns regarding both the limited generalizability and the slow pace of traditional randomized trials have led to calls for greater use of real-world evidence (RWE) in the evaluation of new treatments or products. The RWE label has been used to refer to a variety of departures from the methods of traditional randomized controlled trials. Recognizing this complexity and potential confusion, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine convened a series of workshops to clarify and address questions regarding the use of RWE to evaluate new medical treatments. Those workshops identified three specific dimensions in which RWE studies might differ from traditional clinical trials: use of real-world data (data extracted from health system records or data captured by mobile devices), delivery of real-world treatment (open-label treatments delivered in community settings by community practitioners), and real-world treatment assignment (including nonrandomized comparisons and variations on random assignment such as before-after or stepped-wedge designs). For any RWE study, decisions regarding each of these dimensions depends on the specific research question, characteristics of the potential study settings, and characteristics of the settings where study results would be applied