Primary hepatocellular carcinoma is the main type of potential risk outcome of concern for people with chronic hepatitis B infection. For people with chronic hepatitis B high-risk risk background and high-risk age stage, performing regular screening for early stage hepatocellular carcinoma is equivalent to buying an accident insurance. At least 80% of liver cancers are detected within 2-5 cm under AFP+hepatobiliary and spleen ultrasound examination at six-month intervals. There is a huge gap between early detection and early treatment of primary liver cancer in terms of treatment cost and treatment effect, and late detection and late treatment (the former is surgery+intervention, intervention is determined, treatment cost is relatively determined, 1-year survival rate is close to 100%, 5-year survival rate is 40%-50%; the latter generally loses the best chance of surgery, there are various treatment options and cost uncertainty, treatment effect is poor, 1-year The survival rate is around 10%, and the 5-year survival rate is very low. (Liver transplantation is a different story.) For the small number of patients and families who do develop liver cancer, it is the benefit of doing regular screening and monitoring. For the majority of patients who will not develop liver cancer, it is just as good as buying an insurance policy that is not delivered in the end. In my mind, spending money on early liver cancer surveillance should be the most important money that cannot be saved because the potential benefits are the most significant and concrete. Although the importance of early liver cancer screening has been valued by the medical community and physicians in the last 30 years, and has been requested as a routine outpatient medical order for patients, however, in reality, feedback shows that the percentage of patients who performed regular screening for early liver cancer is extremely low, and the percentage of patients who have performed regular screening for liver cancer is extremely low among those who have developed liver cancer, both in China and foreign countries, and why Why is such a highly valued medical intervention recommendation by the medical community not being implemented in the chronic hepatitis B infected population? For example, in the United States, a 16-year cohort study of a community-based early liver cancer screening trial for chronic hepatitis B carriers found that even after obtaining prior informed consent from patients, the study center wrote three letters every six months to HBV-infected patients themselves, their family physicians and community hospitals to remind them to undergo early liver cancer screening tests, but the compliance rate of HBV-infected patients was only about 57%. Only about 57% of the HBV-infected patients complied with the test. In other words, even with proactive reminders and management, it is difficult for people with chronic HBV infection to adhere to long-term early liver cancer screening tests. In Singapore, where there is also no health care financing problem, HBV-infected patients also show little interest in early liver cancer screening. These suggest that even if people are aware of the importance of early liver cancer screening, it is difficult for them to adhere to it. In addition, the most important reason for the low rate of early liver cancer screening, both in China and in the United States, is that a large percentage of the population with chronic HBV infection does not regularly visit a specialist or medical institution for regular long-term review. Thus, it has been more than 30 years since the early liver cancer screening trial was introduced, yet the vast majority of liver cancer patients worldwide are still found to be in advanced stages and do not receive standardized early liver cancer screening prior to the discovery of liver cancer, and this is the truth.