Background. The performance of risk prediction models for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) was uncertain. The aim of the study was to critically evaluate the reports of transparent and external validation performances of these prediction models based on system review and meta-analysis. Methods. A systematic search of the Web of Science and PubMed was performed for studies published until October 17, 2020. The transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for the individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) tool was used to critically evaluate the quality of external validation reports for six models (CU-HCC, GAG-HCC, PAGE-B, mPAGE-B, REACH-B, and mREACH-B). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values was to estimate the pooled external validating performance based on meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis and metaregression were also performed to explore heterogeneity. Results. Our meta-analysis included 22 studies published between 2011 and 2020. The compliance of the included studies to TRIPOD ranged from 59% to 90% (median, 74%; interquartile range (IQR), 70%, 79%). The AUC values of the six models ranged from 0.715 to 0.778. In the antiviral therapy subgroups, the AUC values of mREACH-B, GAG-HCC, and mPAGE-B were 0.785, 0.760, and 0.778, respectively. In the cirrhosis subgroup, all models had poor discrimination performance (AUC < 0.7). Conclusions. A full report of calibration and handling of missing values would contribute to a greater improvement in the quality of external validation reports for CHB-related HCC risk prediction. It was necessary to develop a specific HCC risk prediction model for patients with cirrhosis.
Editorial: hepatocellular carcinoma risk prediction models following DAA‐mediated SVR—more evidence needed