Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most diagnosed cancer worldwide. Healthcare resource constraints may predispose treatment delays. We aim to review existing literature on whether delayed treatment results in worse outcomes in HCC. PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till December 2022. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included post-treatment mortality, readmission rates, and complications. Fourteen studies with a total of 135,389 patients (delayed n = 25,516, no delay n = 109,873) were included. Age, incidence of male patients, Child–Pugh B cirrhosis, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage 0/A HCC were comparable between delayed and no delay groups. Tumor size was significantly smaller in delayed versus no delay group (mean difference, –0.70 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –1.14, 0.26; p = 0.002). More patients received radiofrequency ablation in delayed versus no delay group (OR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.27; p < 0.0001). OS was comparable between delayed and no delay in HCC treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.29; p = 0.07). Comparable DFS between delayed and no delay groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.30; p = 0.95) was observed. Subgroup analysis of studies that defined treatment delay as > 90 days showed comparable OS in the delayed group (HR, 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.16; p = 0.51).OS and DFS for delayed treatment were non-inferior compared to no delay, but might be due to better tumor biology/smaller tumor size in the delayed group.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most diagnosed cancer worldwide. Healthcare resource constraints may predispose treatment delays. We aim to review existing literature on whether delayed treatment results in worse outcomes in HCC. PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till December 2022. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included post-treatment mortality, readmission rates, and complications. Fourteen studies with a total of 135,389 patients (delayed n = 25,516, no delay n = 109,873) were included. Age, incidence of male patients, Child–Pugh B cirrhosis, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage 0/A HCC were comparable between delayed and no delay groups. Tumor size was significantly smaller in delayed versus no delay group (mean difference, –0.70 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –1.14, 0.26; p = 0.002). More patients received radiofrequency ablation in delayed versus no delay group (OR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.27; p < 0.0001). OS was comparable between delayed and no delay in HCC treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.29; p = 0.07). Comparable DFS between delayed and no delay groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.30; p = 0.95) was observed. Subgroup analysis of studies that defined treatment delay as > 90 days showed comparable OS in the delayed group (HR, 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.16; p = 0.51).OS and DFS for delayed treatment were non-inferior compared to no delay, but might be due to better tumor biology/smaller tumor size in the delayed group.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most diagnosed cancer worldwide. Healthcare resource constraints may predispose treatment delays. We aim to review existing literature on whether delayed treatment results in worse outcomes in HCC. PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till December 2022. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included post-treatment mortality, readmission rates, and complications. Fourteen studies with a total of 135,389 patients (delayed n = 25,516, no delay n = 109,873) were included. Age, incidence of male patients, Child–Pugh B cirrhosis, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage 0/A HCC were comparable between delayed and no delay groups. Tumor size was significantly smaller in delayed versus no delay group (mean difference, –0.70 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –1.14, 0.26; p = 0.002). More patients received radiofrequency ablation in delayed versus no delay group (OR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.27; p < 0.0001). OS was comparable between delayed and no delay in HCC treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.29; p = 0.07). Comparable DFS between delayed and no delay groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.30; p = 0.95) was observed. Subgroup analysis of studies that defined treatment delay as > 90 days showed comparable OS in the delayed group (HR, 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.16; p = 0.51).OS and DFS for delayed treatment were non-inferior compared to no delay, but might be due to better tumor biology/smaller tumor size in the delayed group.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most diagnosed cancer worldwide. Healthcare resource constraints may predispose treatment delays. We aim to review existing literature on whether delayed treatment results in worse outcomes in HCC. PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till December 2022. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included post-treatment mortality, readmission rates, and complications. Fourteen studies with a total of 135,389 patients (delayed n = 25,516, no delay n = 109,873) were included. Age, incidence of male patients, Child–Pugh B cirrhosis, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage 0/A HCC were comparable between delayed and no delay groups. Tumor size was significantly smaller in delayed versus no delay group (mean difference, –0.70 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –1.14, 0.26; p = 0.002). More patients received radiofrequency ablation in delayed versus no delay group (OR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.27; p < 0.0001). OS was comparable between delayed and no delay in HCC treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.29; p = 0.07). Comparable DFS between delayed and no delay groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.30; p = 0.95) was observed. Subgroup analysis of studies that defined treatment delay as > 90 days showed comparable OS in the delayed group (HR, 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.16; p = 0.51).OS and DFS for delayed treatment were non-inferior compared to no delay, but might be due to better tumor biology/smaller tumor size in the delayed group.

OBJECTIVE: Several modalities are available for volumetric measurement of the intracranial aneurysm. We discuss the challenges involved in manual segmentation, and analyze the application of alternative methods using automatic segmentation and geometric formulae in measurement of aneurysm volumes and coil packing density. METHODS: The volumes and morphology of 38 aneurysms treated with endovascular coiling at a single center were measured using three-dimensional rotational angiography (3DRA) reconstruction software using automatic segmentation. Aneurysm volumes were also calculated from their height, width, depth, size of neck, and assumed shape in 3DRA images using simple geometric formulae. The aneurysm volumes were dichotomized as "small" or "large" using the median volume of the studied population (54 mm3) measured by automatic segmentation as the cut-off value for further statistical analysis. RESULTS: A greater proportion of aneurysms were categorized as being "small" when geometric formulae were applied. The median aneurysm volumes obtained were 54.5 mm3 by 3DRA software, and 30.6 mm3 using mathematical equations. An underestimation of aneurysm volume with a resultant overestimation in the calculated coil packing density (p = 0.002) was observed. CONCLUSION: Caution must be exercised in the application of simple geometric formulae in the management of intracranial aneurysms as volumes may potentially be underestimated and packing densities falsely elevated. Future research should focus on validation of automatic segmentation in volumetric measurement and improving its accuracy to enhance its application in clinical practice.
Aneurysm ; Angiography ; Intracranial Aneurysm* ; Neck

Background/Aims: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with the development of cardiovascular disease. While existing studies have examined cardiac remodeling in NAFLD, there has been less emphasis on the development of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify the prevalence, risk factors, and degree of risk increment of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke in NAFLD. Methods: Embase and Medline were searched for articles relating to NAFLD, carotid atherosclerosis, and stroke. Proportional data was analysed using a generalized linear mixed model. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to obtain odds ratio or weighted mean difference for comparison between patients with and without NAFLD. Results: From pooled analysis of 30 studies involving 7,951 patients with NAFLD, 35.02% (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.36–43.53%) had carotid atherosclerosis with an odds ratio of 3.20 (95% CI, 2.37–4.32; P<0.0001). Pooled analysis of 25,839 patients with NAFLD found the prevalence of stroke to be 5.04% (95% CI, 2.74–9.09%) with an odds ratio of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.23–2.88; P=0.02) compared to non-NAFLD. The degree of steatosis assessed by ultrasonography in NAFLD was closely associated with risk of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke. Older age significantly increased the risk of developing carotid atherosclerosis, but not stroke in NAFLD. Conclusions This meta-analysis shows that a stepwise increment of steatosis of NAFLD can significantly increase the risk of carotid atherosclerosis and stroke development in NAFLD. Patients more than a third sufferred from carotid atherosclerosis and routine assessment of carotid atherosclerosis is quintessential in NAFLD.