4.7 Article

Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma according to hepatitis B virus genotype in Alaska Native people

Journal

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
Volume 36, Issue 10, Pages 1507-1515

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/liv.13129

Keywords

epidemiology; genomics; liver cancer; Native American; risk factors

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHHSTP, Division of Viral Hepatitis (CA) [1U01P S004113]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & AimsMost regions of the world have 3 co-circulating hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes, which limits direct comparisons of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among HBV-infected persons by genotype. We evaluated HCC incidence by HBV genotype in a cohort of Alaska Native (AN) persons where five HBV genotypes (A, B, C, D, F) have been identified. MethodsOur cohort comprised AN persons with chronic HBV infection identified during 1983-2012 who consented to participate in this study. Cohort persons were offered annual hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) testing and semi-annual HCC screening. We developed a logistic regression model to compare HCC risk by genotype, adjusting for age, sex, region and HBeAg status. ResultsAmong the 1235 consenting study participants, 711 (57.6%) were male, 510 (41.3%) were HBeAg positive at cohort entry and 43 (3.5%) developed HCC. The HBV genotype was known for 1142 (92.5%) persons (13.5% A, 3.9% B, 6.7% C, 56.9% D, 19.0% F). The HCC incidence/1000 person-years of follow-up for genotypes A, B, C, D and F was 1.3, 0, 5.5, 0.4 and 4.2 respectively. Compared with persons with HBV genotype B/D infection, the HCC risk was higher for persons with genotypes A [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 3.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14-13.74], C (aOR: 16.3, 95% CI: 5.20-51.11) and F (aOR: 13.9, 95% CI: 5.30-36.69). ConclusionHBV genotype is independently associated with HCC risk. AN persons with genotypes A, C and F are at higher risk compared with genotypes B or D.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available