Table 3.

Correlates of Surveillance Utilization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Author, year	Age	Gender	Race	Etiology of liver disease	SES	Provider type	Number of clinic visits†
Davila 20079	< 65 years	N/D	—	Viral or EtOH liver disease	N/D	N/D	N/D
Leykum 200711	Older age (continuous)	N/D	Caucasian	N/D	N/D	Subspecialty care	N/D
Wong 200915	—	—	—	—	—	—	+
Davila 20108 *	Younger age (continuous)	Female	Asian Caucasian	Viral liver disease	Higher income/ education	Subspecialty care	+
Jou 201010	—	—	—	Viral liver disease	N/D	Subspecialty care	N/D
Palmer 201012	—	Female	—	Viral or EtOH liver disease	N/D	Subspecialty care	N/D
Patwardhan 201013	—	—	—	—	N/D	Subspecialty care	N/D
Davila 20117 *	> 50 years	—	Caucasian	—	N/D	N/D	+
Singal 201114	—	Male	—	—	—	N/D	N/D

EtOH – alcohol; N/D – not determined; SES – socioeconomic status

Factors with (—) were examined but not found to be significantly associated with surveillance rates

^*More recent HCC diagnosis, longer duration of known cirrhosis, severity of liver disease, and comorbid conditions were reported as other correlates of HCC surveillance

^†Studies with (+) demonstrated that more frequent visits were associated with higher surveillance rates