Table 1.

Comparison of international HBV guidelines for HCC surveillance

	EASL (2017)	AASLD (2018)	APASL (2015)
Who?	Suggests consideration of host and disease factors Suggests risk scores (eg, PAGE-B) to stratify patients as low, moderate or high risk Recommends surveillance for patients: Undergoing long-term NA therapy With cirrhosis With moderate/high risk at onset of NA therapy Recommends against surveillance for patients: With low risk	Recommends surveillance for HBsAg+ patients with: Cirrhosis High risk (Asian/Black men >40 years, Asian women >50 years) History of HCC in first degree relative HDV coinfection	Affirms risk prediction scores can accurately risk stratify patients Suggests threshold incidence of surveillance be determined individually based on the economic situation of each country Recommends surveillance for patients with: CHB at high risk Recommends against surveillance for patients with: Class C Child-Pugh scores.
How?	Not stated	Recommends ultrasound±AFP 6 monthly States insufficient evidence for/against inclusion of AFP in screening algorithms	Recommends USS+AFP 6 monthly, or preferably 3 monthly in cirrhotics and those at high risk Recommends contrast-CT or contrast-MRI to confirm suspicious ultrasound lesions AND for initial screening of patients with advanced cirrhosis and high suspicion of HCC development Recommends baseline contrast-CT or contrast-MRI obtained in all cirrhotics at presentation

AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; AFP, alpha fetoprotein; APASL, Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver; HBsAg+, hepatitis B surface antigen positive; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HDV, hepatitis D virus; NA, nucleos(t)ide analogue.