Imaging of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis and risk of false diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Adult
Aged
Bile Duct Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Biomarkers
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
/ diagnostic imaging
Cholangiocarcinoma
/ diagnostic imaging
Diagnostic Errors
Female
Humans
Image Enhancement
Liver Cirrhosis
/ complications
Liver Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Multimodal Imaging
/ methods
Risk Factors
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
Tumor Burden
Ultrasonography
/ methods
CEUS
Liver tumors
contrast-enhanced ultrasound
liver imaging
primary liver cancer
Journal
United European gastroenterology journal
ISSN: 2050-6406
Titre abrégé: United European Gastroenterol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
25
08
2018
accepted:
13
10
2018
entrez:
22
2
2019
pubmed:
23
2
2019
medline:
23
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma can be achieved by imaging in cirrhotic patients. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma is a primary liver tumor and its imaging patterns have been poorly investigated. Misdiagnosis for either hepatocellular carcinoma or benign lesions can occur. We aimed to evaluate the enhancement pattern of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis with imaging techniques and to estimate the risk of misdiagnosis for hepatocellular carcinoma. All histology-confirmed combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis seen in two Italian centers between 2003 and 2016, in which at least one imaging technique had been performed, was retrospectively collected. The enhancement pattern was analyzed for all available imaging modalities. A total of 37 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma nodules were identified. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging had been performed in 27, 34, and 17 nodules, respectively. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound was at higher risk of misdiagnosis for pure hepatocellular carcinoma than computed tomography ( Contrast-enhanced ultrasound misdiagnosed a higher number of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma as hepatocellular carcinoma than computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. However, the latter techniques were able to identify features of malignancy less often.
Sections du résumé
Background
Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma can be achieved by imaging in cirrhotic patients. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma is a primary liver tumor and its imaging patterns have been poorly investigated. Misdiagnosis for either hepatocellular carcinoma or benign lesions can occur. We aimed to evaluate the enhancement pattern of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis with imaging techniques and to estimate the risk of misdiagnosis for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Methods
All histology-confirmed combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis seen in two Italian centers between 2003 and 2016, in which at least one imaging technique had been performed, was retrospectively collected. The enhancement pattern was analyzed for all available imaging modalities.
Results
A total of 37 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma nodules were identified. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging had been performed in 27, 34, and 17 nodules, respectively. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound was at higher risk of misdiagnosis for pure hepatocellular carcinoma than computed tomography (
Conclusions
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound misdiagnosed a higher number of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma as hepatocellular carcinoma than computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. However, the latter techniques were able to identify features of malignancy less often.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30788118
doi: 10.1177/2050640618815378
pii: 10.1177_2050640618815378
pmc: PMC6374835
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
69-77Références
Ultraschall Med. 2013 Feb;34(1):11-29
pubmed: 23129518
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jul;189(1):W7-W12
pubmed: 17579140
Radiology. 1999 Sep;212(3):866-75
pubmed: 10478259
Hepatology. 2010 Jun;51(6):2020-9
pubmed: 20512990
J Hepatol. 2014 Aug;61(2):432-4
pubmed: 24751832
Hepatology. 2014 Jun;59(6):2397-402
pubmed: 24123296
J Hepatol. 2013 Jun;58(6):1188-93
pubmed: 23485522
Histopathology. 2011 Dec;59(6):1090-9
pubmed: 22175889
Am J Pathol. 1949 Jul;25(4):647-55
pubmed: 18152860
Transplantation. 2015 Jan;99(1):151-7
pubmed: 25029385
Ultraschall Med. 2017 Jan;38(1):85-86
pubmed: 28249328
J Hepatol. 2014 Jun;60(6):1268-89
pubmed: 24681130
Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Jul;58(7):2114-23
pubmed: 23397471
Am J Transplant. 2010 May;10(5):1263-7
pubmed: 20420633
Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Sep;45(9):712-23
pubmed: 23769756
Cancer. 1985 Jan 1;55(1):124-35
pubmed: 2578078
Radiol Med. 2008 Feb;113(1):76-86
pubmed: 18338129
Ultraschall Med. 2004 Aug;25(4):249-56
pubmed: 15300497
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003 Mar-Apr;27(2):117-24
pubmed: 12702999
J Oncol. 2010;2010:
pubmed: 20871663
Hepatology. 2012 Jun;55(6):1876-88
pubmed: 22271564
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun;33(6):283-7
pubmed: 12913082
Liver Int. 2013 May;33(5):771-9
pubmed: 23445369
Carcinogenesis. 2012 Sep;33(9):1791-6
pubmed: 22696594
J Hepatol. 2012 Apr;56(4):908-43
pubmed: 22424438
Radiographics. 2017 Nov-Dec;37(7):1994-2017
pubmed: 29131761
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Aug;201(2):332-9
pubmed: 23883213
J Hepatol. 2004 Sep;41(3):421-6
pubmed: 15336445
Hum Pathol. 1995 Sep;26(9):956-64
pubmed: 7545644
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;36(5):1139-47
pubmed: 22782783
Abdom Imaging. 2013 Feb;38(1):112-9
pubmed: 22323003
Hepatology. 2011 Mar;53(3):1020-2
pubmed: 21374666