§ Drs. Murphy and Parikh contributed equally and are co-senior authors Author contributions: Dr. Singal had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design (Singal and Parikh); Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data (all authors); Drafting of the manuscript (Singal); Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (all authors); Obtained funding (Singal, Parikh); Administrative, technical, and material support (Singal and Parikh); Study supervision (Singal) Conflicts of Interest: Amit Singal was on speakers bureau for Gilead, Bayer, and Bristol Meyers Squibb. He has served on advisory boards for Gilead, Abbvie, Bayer, Eisai, Wako Diagnostics, Roche, and Exact Sciences. He serves as a consultant to Bayer, Eisai, Roche, and Glycotest. He has received research funding from Gilead and Abbvie. Neil Mehta has received research funding from Wako Diagnostics. Anjana Pillai serves as a consultant and is on speakers bureau for Eisai and BTG. Jordan Feld has received research support from Gilead, Abbvie, Merck, and Janssen. Binu John has served on advisory boards for Eisai. Catherine Frenette is on speakers bureaus for Bayer, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Gilead, Merck, Abbvie, and Eisai. She served on advisory boards for Gilead, Eisai, and Wako. She served as a consultant for Bayer and Gilead. She received research funding from Bayer. Parvez Mantry is on speakers bureaus and served on advisory boards for Gilead, Abbvie, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Merck, and BTG. He has received research funding from Gilead and Sirtex. Michael Leise has received research funding from Abbvie. Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri serves as scientific advisory board member for Gilead, Merck, and Abbvie. He has received research funding from Gilead. Laura Kulik is on speakers bureau for Eisai, Gilead, and Dova. She serves as an advisory board member for BMS, Eisai, Bayer, Exelixis Reena Salgia is on speakers bureau for Bayer. She has served on advisory boards for Bayer, Eisai, and Exelixis. Sanjaya Satapathy has received research support from Gilead and Bayer.He has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for Abbvie and Gilead.

No abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer in the world with rising incidence. Globally, there has been substantial variation in prevalence of risk factors for HCC over years, like control of viral hepatitis in developing countries but growing epidemic of fatty liver disease in developed world. Changing epidemiology of HCC is related to trends in these risk factors. HCC remains asymptomatic until it is very advanced which makes early detection by surveillance important in reducing HCC related mortality. Management of HCC. depends on stage of the tumor and severity of underlying liver disease.At present, resection and transplant are still the best curative options for small HCC, but recent advances in locoregional therapy and molecular targeted systemic therapy has changed the management for HCC at intermediate and advanced stages. This review is overview of global epidemiology, prevention, surveillance and emerging therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

For detection of EV, we prefer using LSPS and SS over LS when available, while LS, SS, and LSPS cannot be recommended for detection of HREV due to their moderate sensitivity and specificity.

AIM: To compare (using the Ottawa Bowel PreparationScale) the efficacy of split-dose vs morning administration of polyethylene glycol solution for colon cleansing in patients undergoing colonoscopy, and to assess the optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval. METHODS:Single-centre, prospective, randomized, investigator-blind stud in an academic tertiarycare centre. Two hundred patients requiring elective colonoscopy were assigned to receive one of the two preparation regimens (split vs morning) prior to colonoscopy. Main outcome measurements were bowel preparation quality and patient tolerability. RESULTS:Split-dose regimen resulted in better bowel preparation compared to morning regimen [Ottawa score mean 5.52 (SD 1.23) vs 6.02 (1.34); P = 0.017].On subgroup analysis, for afternoon procedures, both the preparations were equally effective (P = 0.756). There was no difference in tolerability and compliance between the two regimens. CONCLUSION:Overall, previous evening -same morning split-dosing regimen results in better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy compared to morning preparation. For afternoon procedures, both schedules are equally effective; morning preparation may be more convenient to the patient. Key words: Bowel preparation; Colonoscopy; Morning preparation; Split dose preparation; Preparation to colonoscopy interval Core tip: Split bowel reparation compared to single dose morning preparation resulted in a better bowel cleansing using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. The average score (± SD) using the Ottawa Scale was 6.02 ± 1.34 when morning preparation was given and 5.52 ± 1.23 when split preparation was given (P = 0.017). However, there was no statistical difference in the mean Ottawa score when the procedures were done in the afternoon with either the morning or the split preparation (6.09 vs 5.94, P = 0.756). Hence, AM only dosing is as effective as split dosing for patients scheduled for a colonoscopy in the afternoon.