Primary and secondary prevention of liver cancer caused by HBV.

Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA.
Frontiers in bioscience (Scholar edition) 01/2010; 2:756-63. DOI: 10.2741/s98
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Primary cancer of the liver (hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide; HBV is the major cause of HCC. A vaccine that protects against HBV infection was invented in 1969 and is now one of the most commonly used vaccines. National vaccination programs have dramatically reduced the prevalence of HBV infection and carriers, with a concomitant decrease in the incidence of HCC in the vaccine-impacted populations. HBV vaccine is the first widely used cancer prevention vaccine; a second that protects against papilloma virus and cancer of the cervix has recently been introduced. Appropriate treatment of HBV carriers with antivirals can reduce the titers of HBV in their blood and thereby greatly reduce the risk of HCC and chronic liver disease. Further data are required to establish criterion for treatment to enable protocols for medical and prevention programs. There are other viral caused cancers and an understanding of their pathogenesis is an important future direction for research to reduce the human burden of cancer.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For healthcare workers, sometimes the conventional hepatitis-B virus (HBV) vaccination schedule might not provide seroconversion rapidly enough. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of conventional HBV vaccination with an accelerated schedule (days 0-1-21). In this randomized clinical trial, 161 healthcare workers were divided into two vaccination groups; group A underwent the conventional schedule (0-1-6 months) and group B received the accelerated program (0-10-21 days) of hepatitis B virus vaccine. The anti-HBs antibody was determined 30 days after completion of the third vaccine injection in both groups by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Abbot, Aux SYMsys). By using the Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests, the results were analyzed. The protective level of anti-HBS was defined as titer ≥10 MIU/ml. The seroprotection rate, 30 days after vaccination, were similar in both groups A and B; 96.3% of the participants in group A and 92.6% in group B had anti-HBS antibody ≥10 MIU/ml. Our data indicated that compared to the classic HBS vaccination program an accelerated schedule could also be effective and achieve seroprotection more rapidly.
    Journal of research in medical sciences 10/2012; 17(10):934-7. · 0.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The clinical course of infections with the hepatitis B virus (HBV) substantially varies between individuals, as a consequence of a complex interplay between viral, host, environmental and other factors. Due to the high genetic variability of HBV, the virus can be categorized into different HBV genotypes and subgenotypes, which considerably differ with respect to geographical distribution, transmission routes, disease progression, responses to antiviral therapy or vaccination, and clinical outcome measures such as cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. However, HBV (sub)genotyping has caused some controversies in the past due to misclassifications and incorrect interpretations of different genotyping methods. Thus, an accurate, holistic and dynamic classification system is essential. In this review article, we aimed at highlighting potential pitfalls in genetic and phylogenetic analyses of HBV and suggest novel terms for HBV classification. Analyzing full-length genome sequences when classifying genotypes and subgenotypes is the foremost prerequisite of this classification system. Careful attention must be paid to all aspects of phylogenetic analysis, such as bootstrapping values and meeting the necessary thresholds for (sub)genotyping. Quasi-subgenotype refers to subgenotypes that were incorrectly suggested to be novel. As many of these strains were misclassified due to genetic differences resulting from recombination, we propose the term "recombino-subgenotype". Moreover, immigration is an important confounding facet of global HBV distribution and substantially changes the geographic pattern of HBV (sub)genotypes. We therefore suggest the term "immigro-subgenotype" to distinguish exotic (sub)genotypes from native ones. We are strongly convinced that applying these two proposed terms in HBV classification will help harmonize this rapidly progressing field and allow for improved prophylaxis, diagnosis and treatment.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 06/2014; 20(23):7152-7168. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i23.7152 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review analyzes progress and limitations of diagnosis, screening, and therapy of patients with chronic hepatitis B infection. A literature review was carried out by framing the study questions. Vaccination in early childhood has been introduced in most countries and reduces the infection rate. Treatment of chronic hepatitis B can control viral replication in most patients today. It reduces risks for progression and may reverse liver fibrosis. The treatment effect on development of hepatocellular carcinoma is less pronounced when cirrhosis is already present. Despite the success of vaccination and therapy chronic hepatitis B remains a problem since many infected patients do not know of their disease. Although all guidelines recommend screening in high risk groups such as migrants, these suggestions have not been implemented. In addition, the performance of hepatocellular cancer surveillance under real-life conditions is poor. The majority of people with chronic hepatitis B live in resource-constrained settings where effective drugs are not available. Despite the success of vaccination and therapy chronic hepatitis B infection remains a major problem since many patients do not know of their disease. The problems in diagnosis and screening may be overcome by raising awareness, promoting partnerships, and mobilizing resources.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 09/2014; 20(33):11595-11617. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i33.11595 · 2.43 Impact Factor


Available from