Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Retrospective Evaluation of Discrepancies between Radiological and Pathological Size of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Masses

  • Tian, Fei (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Wu, Jian-Xiong (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Rong, Wei-Qi (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Wang, Li-Ming (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Wu, Fan (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Yu, Wei-Bo (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • An, Song-Lin (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Liu, Fa-Qiang (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Feng, Li (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Liu, Yun-He (Abdominal Surgery Department, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2014.11.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The size of a hepatic neoplasm is critical for staging, prognosis and selection of appropriate treatment. Our study aimed to compare the radiological size of solid hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) masses on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the pathological size in a Chinese population, and to elucidate discrepancies. Materials and Methods: A total of 178 consecutive patients diagnosed with HCC who underwent curative hepatic resection after enhanced MRI between July 2010 and October 2013 were retrospectively identified and analyzed. Pathological data of the whole removed tumors wereassessed and differences between radiological and pathological tumor size were identified. All patients were restaged using a modified Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system postoperatively according to the maximum diameter alteration. The lesions were classified as hypo-staged, iso-staged or hyper-staged for qualitative assessment. In the quantitative analysis, the relative pre and postoperative tumor size contrast ratio ($%{\Delta}size$) was also computed according to size intervals. In addition, the relationship between radiological and pathological tumor diameter variation and histologic grade was analyzed. Results: Pathological examination showed 85 (47.8%) patients were overestimated, 82 (46.1%) patients underestimated, while accurate measurement by MRI was found in 11 (6.2%) patients. Among the total subjects, 14 (7.9%) patients were hypo-staged and 15 (8.4%) were hyper-staged post-operatively. Accuracy of MRI for calculation and characterized staging was related to the lesion size, ranging from 83.1% to 87.4% (<2cm to ${\geq}5cm$, p=0.328) and from 62.5% to 89.1% (cT1 to cT4, p=0.006), respectively. Overall, MRI misjudged pathological size by 6.0 mm (p=0.588 ), and the greatest difference was observed in tumors <2cm (3.6 mm, $%{\Delta}size=16.9%$, p=0.028). No statistically significant difference was observed for moderately differentiated HCC (5.5mm, p=0.781). However, for well differentiated and poorly differentiated cases, radiographic tumor maximum diameter was significantly larger than the pathological maximum diameter by 3.15 mm and underestimated by 4.51 mm, respectively (p=0.034 and 0.020). Conclusions: A preoperative HCC tumor size measurement using MRI can provide relatively acceptable accuracy but may give rise to discrepancy in tumors in a certain size range or histologic grade. In pathological well differentiated subjects, the pathological tumor size was significantly overestimated, but underestimated in poorly differentiated HCC. The difference between radiological and pathological tumor size was greatest for tumors <2 cm. For some HCC patients, the size difference may have implications for the decision of resection, transplantation, ablation, or arterially directed therapy, and should be considered in staging or selecting the appropriate treatment tactics.

Keywords

References

  1. An C, Choi GH, Lee HS, et al (2012). Assessment of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging staging in patients with HCC undergoing resection compared with the seventh AJCC system. Invest Radiol, 47, 634-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182630e8d
  2. Bosch FX, Ribes J, Borras J (1999). Epidemiology of primary liver cancer. Semin Liver Dis, 19, 271-85. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1007117
  3. Can A, Dogan E, Bayoglu IV et al (2014). Multicenter epidemiologic study on HCC in Turkey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 2923-7. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2923
  4. Chen YL, Ko CJ, Chien SY, et al (2011). Tumor size as a prog nostic factor in resected small HCC: a controversy revisited. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 26, 851-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06595.x
  5. Choi JY, Kim BS, Kim TH, et al (2010). Correlation between radiologic and pathologic tumor size in localized renal cell carcinoma. Korean J Urol, 51, 161-4. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.3.161
  6. Edmondson HA, Steiner PE (1954). Primary carcinoma of the liver: a study of 100 cases among 48, 900 necropsies. Cancer, 7, 462-503. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(195405)7:3<462::AID-CNCR2820070308>3.0.CO;2-E
  7. El-Serag HB, Mason AC (1999). Rising incidence of HCC in the United States. N Engl J Med, 340, 745-50. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199903113401001
  8. Freeman RB, Mithoefer A, Ruthazer R, et al (2006). Optimizing staging for HCC before liver transplantation: a retrospective analysis of the UNOS/OPTN database. Liver Transpl, 12, 1504-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20847
  9. Han X, Dong Y, Xiu JJ, et al (2014). Diffusion-weighted imaging for the left hepatic lobe has higher diagnostic accuracy for malignant focal liver lesions. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6155-60. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6155
  10. Hanna RF, Kased N, Kwan SW, et al (2008). Double-contrast MRI for accurate staging of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. AJR, 190, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2595
  11. Herr HW, Lee CT, Sharma S, et al (2001). Radiographic versus pathologic size of renal tumors: implications for partial nephrectomy. Urology, 58, 157-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01173-6
  12. Irani J, Humbert M, Lecocq B, et al (2001). Renal tumor size: comparison between computed tomography and surgical measurements. Eur Urol, 39, 300-3. https://doi.org/10.1159/000052457
  13. Ishak K, Baptista A, Bianchi L (1995). Histological grading and staging of chronic hepatitis. J Hepatol, 22, 696-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8278(95)80226-6
  14. Jeffery NN, Douek N, Guo DY, et al (2011). Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses. BMC Urol, 11, 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-11-2
  15. Kanofsky JA, Phillips CK, Stifelman MD, et al (2006). Impact of discordant radiologic and pathologic tumor size on renal cancer staging. Urology, 68, 728-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.04.042
  16. Kikuchi LO, Paranagua-Vezozzo DC, Chagas AL, et al (2009). Nodules less than 20mm and vascular invasion are predictors of survival in small HCC. J Clin Gastroenterol, 43, 191-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e31817ff199
  17. Ko CJ, Chien SY, Chou CT, et al (2011). Factors affecting the prognosis of small HCC in Taiwanese patients following hepatic resection. Can J Gastroenterol, 25, 485-91.
  18. Lee SE, Lee WK, Kim DS, et al (2010). Comparison of radiographic and pathologic sizes of renal tumors. World J Urol, 28, 263-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0511-0
  19. Libbrecht L, Bielen D, Verslype C, et al (2002). Focal lesions in cirrhotic explant livers: pathological evaluation and accuracy of pretransplantation imaging examinations. Liver Transpl, 8, 749-61. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2002.34922
  20. Livraghi T, Meloni F, Di Stasi M, et al (2008). Sustained complete response and complications rates after radiofrequency ablation of very early HCC in cirrhosis: is resection still the treatment of choice? Hepatology, 47, 82-9.
  21. Martin AP, Bartels M, Hauss J, et al (2007). Overview of the MELD score and the UNOS adult liver allocation system. Transplant Proc, 39, 3169-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.04.025
  22. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al (1996). Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med, 334, 693-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603143341104
  23. Nathan H, Schulick RD, Choti MA, et al (2009). Predictors of survival after resection of early HCC. Ann Surg, 249, 799-805. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a38eb5
  24. Norsa'adah B, Nurhazalini-Zayani CG (2013). Epidemiology and survival of HCC in north-east Peninsular Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6955-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.11.6955
  25. Peng ZW, Lin XJ, Zhang YJ, et al (2012). Radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for the treatment of HCCs 2 cm or smaller: a retrospective comparative study. Radiology, 262, 1022-33. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110817
  26. Poon RT (2007). Optimal initial treatment for early HCC in patients with preserved liver function: transplantation or resection? Ann Surg Oncol, 14, 541-7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9156-z
  27. Ruzzenente A, Guglielmi A, Sandri M, et al (2012). Surgical resection versus local ablation for HCC on cirrhosis: results from a propensity case-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg, 16, 301-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1745-x
  28. Somboon K, Siramolpiwat S, Vilaichone RK (2014). Epidemiology and survival of HCC in the central region of thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 3567-70. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.8.3567
  29. Truty MJ, Vauthey JN (2010). Surgical resection of high-risk HCC: patient selection, preoperative considerations, and operative technique. Ann Surg Oncol, 17, 1219-25. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0976-5
  30. Wang ZJ, Wang MQ, Duan F, et al (2013). Clinical application of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization combined with synchronous C-arm cone-beam CT guided radiofrequency ablation in treatment of large HCC. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 1649-54. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.3.1649
  31. Xu J, Liu C, Zhou L, et al (2012). Distinctions between clinicopathological factors and prognosis of alpha-fetoprotein negative and positive hepatocelluar carcinoma patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 559-62. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.2.559
  32. Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, et al (2001). Liver transplantation for HCC: expansion of the tumor size limits does not adversely impact survival. Hepatology, 33, 1394-403. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2001.24563
  33. Yaycioglu O, Rutman MP, Balasubramaniam M, et al (2002). Clinical and pathologic tumor size in renal cell carcinoma: difference, correlation, and analysis of the influencing factors. Urology, 60, 33-8.
  34. Yen YH, Changchien CS, Wang JH, et al (2009). A modified TNM-based Japan Integrated Score combined with AFP level may serve as a better staging system for early-stage predominant HCC patients. Dig Liver Dis, 41, 431-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2008.11.008
  35. Zhou L, Liu C, Meng FD, et al (2012). Long-term prognosis in HCC patients after hepatectomy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 483-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.2.483

Cited by

  1. The value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase to platelet ratio in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma vol.98, pp.9, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014749