Global prevalence of MAFLD-related hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
Harry Crane1, Guy D. Eslick2, Cameron Gofton1,3, Anjiya Shaikh4, George Cholankeril5, Mark Cheah6, Jian-Hong Zhong7, Gianluca Svegliati-Baroni8, Alessandro Vitale9, Beom Kyung Kim10, Sang Hoon Ahn10, Mi Na Kim10, Simone Strasser11, Jacob George1 |
1Storr Liver Centre, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 2NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Digestive Diseases, Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia 3Department of Gastroenterology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia 4Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA 5Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA 6Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital 7Hepatobiliary Surgery Department, Guangxi Liver Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Engineering and Technology Research Center, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China 8Liver Injury and Transplant Unit, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy 9Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy 10Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 11AW Morrow Gastroenterology and Liver Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia |
|
Received: February 15, 2024 Revised: April 11, 2024 Accepted: April 15, 2024 |
|
ABSTRACT |
|
BACKGROUND & AIMS
The global proportion of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) attributable to metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is unclear. The MAFLD diagnostic criteria allows objective diagnosis in the presence of steatosis plus defined markers of metabolic dysfunction, irrespective of concurrent liver disease. We aimed to determine the total global prevalence of MAFLD in HCC cohorts (total-MAFLD), including the proportion with MAFLD as their sole liver disease (single-MAFLD), and the proportion of those with concurrent liver disease where MAFLD was a contributary factor (mixed-MAFLD).
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies systematically ascertaining MAFLD in HCC cohorts, defined using international expert panel criteria including ethnicity specific BMI cut-offs. A comparison of clinical and tumour characteristics was performed between single-MAFLD, mixed-MAFLD and non-MAFLD HCC.
RESULTS
22 studies (56,565 individuals with HCC) were included. Total and single-MAFLD HCC prevalence was 48.7% (95% CI; 34.5% – 63.0%) and 12.4% (95% CI; 8.3% – 17.3%), respectively. In HCC due to chronic hepatitis B, C and alcohol-related liver disease, mixed-MAFLD prevalence was 40.0% (95% CI; 30.2% – 50.3%), 54.1% (95% CI; 40.4% – 67.6%) and 64.3% (95% CI; 52.7% – 75.0%), respectively. Mixed-MAFLD HCC had significantly higher likelihood of cirrhosis and lower likelihood of metastatic spread compared to single-MAFLD HCC, and a higher platelet count and lower likelihood of macrovascular invasion compared to non-MAFLD HCC.
CONCLUSION
MAFLD is common as a sole aetiology, but more so and as a co-factor in mixed-aetiology HCC, supporting the use of a positive diagnostic criteria. |
KeyWords:
MAFLD, hepatocellular carcinoma, epidemiology, prevalence, dual-aetiology |
|
|