Dataset Information

Clinical features and diagnostic imaging of cholangiolocellular carcinoma compared with other primary liver cancers: a surgical perspective.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Although cholangiolocellular carcinoma is considered a combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma, we feel that this classification is not appropriate. Therefore, we compared the diagnostic imaging findings, surgical prognosis, and pathological features of cholangiolocellular carcinoma with those of other combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma subtypes, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS:The study patients included 7 with classical type combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma; 8 with stem cell feature, intermediate type combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma; 13 with cholangiolocellular carcinoma; 58 with cholangiocarcinoma; and 359 with hepatocellular carcinoma. All patients underwent hepatectomy or living-related donor liver transplantation from 2001 to 2014. RESULTS:cholangiolocellular carcinoma could be distinguished from hepatocellular carcinom, other combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma subtypes, and cholangiocarcinoma by the presence of intratumoral Glisson's pedicle, hepatic vein penetration, and tumor-staining pattern on angiography-assisted CT. Cholangiolocellular carcinoma was associated with a significantly lower SUV-max than that of cholangiocarcinoma on FDG-PET. Hepatocellular carcinoma, classical type, and cholangiolocellular carcinoma had significantly better prognoses than stem cell feature, intermediate type and cholangiocarcinoma. A cholangiocarcinoma component was detected in cholangiolocellular carcinoma that progressed to the hepatic hilum, and the cholangiocarcinoma component was found in perineural invasion and lymph node metastases. CONCLUSIONS:From the viewpoint of surgeon, cholangiolocellular carcinoma should be classified as a good-prognosis subtype of biliary tract carcinoma because of its tendency to differentiate into cholangiocarcinoma during its progression, and its distinctive imaging and few recurrence rates different from other combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma subtypes.

SUBMITTER: Takamura H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7592326 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical features and diagnostic imaging of cholangiolocellular carcinoma compared with other primary liver cancers: a surgical perspective.

Takamura Hiroyuki H Gabata Ryousuke R Obatake Yoshinao Y Nakanuma Shinichi S Hayashi Hironori H Kozaka Kazuto K Sasaki Motoko M Okazaki Mitsuyoshi M Yamaguchi Takahisa T Shimbashi Hiroyuki H Terai Shiro S Okamoto Koichi K Makino Isamu I Kinoshita Jun J Nakamura Keishi K Miyashita Tomoharu T Tajima Hidehiro H Ninomiya Itasu I Fushida Sachio S Kitao Azusa A Kitahara Masaaki M Arai Kuniaki K Yamashita Taro T Yamashita Tatsuya T Ikeda Hiroko H Satoh Yasunori Y Harada Kenichi K Kaneko Syuichi S Gabata Toshihumi T Kosaka Tateo T Ohta Tetsuo T

Technology in cancer research & treatment 20200101

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Although cholangiolocellular carcinoma is considered a combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma, we feel that this classification is not appropriate. Therefore, we compared the diagnostic imaging findings, surgical prognosis, and pathological features of cholangiolocellular carcinoma with those of other combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma subtypes, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma.<h4>Methods</h4>The study patients included 7 wit ...[more]

PMID: 33073719

Similar Datasets

Project description:To determine for expert and novice radiologists repeatability of major diagnostic features and scoring systems (ie, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System [LI-RADS], Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network [OPTN], and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases [AASLD]) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.Institutional review board approval was obtained and patient consent was waived for this HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. The LI-RADS discussed in this article refers to version 2013.1. Ten blinded readers reviewed 100 liver MR imaging studies that demonstrated observations preliminarily assigned LI-RADS scores of LR1-LR5. Diameter and major HCC features (arterial hyperenhancement, washout appearance, pseudocapsule) were recorded for each observation. LI-RADS, OPTN, and AASLD scores were assigned. Interreader agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficients and ? statistics. Scoring rates were compared by using McNemar test.Overall interreader agreement was substantial for arterial hyperenhancement (0.67 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.65, 0.69]), moderate for washout appearance (0.48 [95%CI: 0.46, 0.50]), moderate for pseudocapsule (0.52 [95% CI: 050, 0.54]), fair for LI-RADS (0.35 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.37]), fair for AASLD (0.39 [95% CI: 0.37, 0.42]), and moderate for OPTN (0.53 [95% CI: 0.51, 0.56]). Agreement for measured diameter was almost perfect (range, 0.95-0.97). There was substantial agreement for most scores consistent with HCC. Experts agreed significantly more than did novices and were significantly more likely than were novices to assign a diagnosis of HCC (P < .001).Two of three major features for HCC (washout appearance and pseudocapsule) have only moderate interreader agreement. Experts and novices who assigned scores consistent with HCC had substantial but not perfect agreement. Expert agreement is substantial for OPTN, but moderate for LI-RADS and AASLD. Novices were less consistent and less likely to diagnose HCC than were experts.

Project description:BackgroundRoughly 5% of metastatic cancers present with uncertain origin, for which molecular classification could influence subsequent management; however, prior studies of molecular diagnostic classifiers have reported mixed results with regard to clinical impact. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the utility of a novel molecular diagnostic classifier by assessing theoretical changes in treatment and additional testing recommendations from oncologists before and after the review of classifier predictions.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed de-identified records from 289 patients with a consensus diagnosis of cancer of uncertain/unknown primary (CUP). Two (or three, if adjudication was required) independent oncologists separately reviewed patient clinical information to determine the course of treatment before they reviewed results from the molecular diagnostic classifier and subsequently evaluated whether the predicted diagnosis would alter their treatment plan.ResultsResults from the molecular diagnostic classifier changed the consensus oncologist-reported treatment recommendations for 235 out of 289 patients (81.3%). At the level of individual oncologist reviews (n = 414), 64.7% (n = 268) of treatment recommendations were based on CUP guidelines prior to review of results from the molecular diagnostic classifier. After seeing classifier results, 98.1% (n = 207) of the reviews, where treatment was specified (n = 211), were guided by the tissue of origin-specific guidelines. Overall, 89.9% of the 414 total reviews either expressed strong agreement (n = 242) or agreement (n = 130) that the molecular diagnostic classifier result increased confidence in selecting the most appropriate treatment regimen.ConclusionsA retrospective review of CUP cases demonstrates that a novel molecular diagnostic classifier could affect treatment in the majority of patients, supporting its clinical utility. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate whether the use of molecular diagnostic classifiers improves clinical outcomes in CUP patients.

Project description:ObjectiveDifferent molecular subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have previously been identified through analysis of gene expression profiles. The luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype has been shown to have a lower rate of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than other TNBC subtypes. The purpose of this study was to determine if the imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR (androgen receptor) status, which is a surrogate immunohistochemical (IHC) marker for the chemoresistant LAR subtype of TNBC.Materials and methodsThis sub-study was part of a clinical trial in patients with stage I-III TNBC who were prospectively monitored for response while receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) at a single comprehensive cancer center. This interim imaging analysis included 144 patients with known AR status measured by IHC. AR-positive (AR+) tumors were defined as those in which at least 10% of tumor cells had positive nuclear AR staining. Two experienced, fellowship-trained breast radiologists who were blinded to the IHC results retrospectively reviewed and reached consensus on all imaging studies for the index lesion (i.e., mammogram, ultrasound, and breast magnetic resonance imaging). The index lesion for each patient was reviewed and described according to the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify imaging features predictive of AR status. p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsUnivariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.02), mass with calcifications (p = 0.05), irregular mass shape on mammography (p = 0.03), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.01), high mass density on mammography (p = 0.003), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.0004).ConclusionThe imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR status. Multimodality breast imaging may help identify the LAR subtype of TNBC, which has been shown to be a subtype that is relatively resistant to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Dataset Information

Clinical features and diagnostic imaging of cholangiolocellular carcinoma compared with other primary liver cancers: a surgical perspective.

Publications

Clinical features and diagnostic imaging of cholangiolocellular carcinoma compared with other primary liver cancers: a surgical perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets