Radiological diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma does not preclude biopsy before treatment.

American Association for the study of Liver Diseases 2011 Biopsy Diagnostic performance Hepatocellular carcinoma LI-RADS V2018

Journal

JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology
ISSN: 2589-5559
Titre abrégé: JHEP Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101761237

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 12 06 2023
revised: 16 10 2023
accepted: 17 10 2023
medline: 18 1 2024
pubmed: 18 1 2024
entrez: 18 1 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis relies on non-invasive criteria based on international guidelines. The advent of systemic therapies warrants reconsideration of the role of biopsy specimens in the diagnosis of HCC. Accordingly, we investigated the diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS 2018 and the AASLD 2011 criteria. Consecutive patients with cirrhosis who underwent a biopsy for suspected HCC between 2015 and 2020 were included. The available imaging studies (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging) were blindly reviewed by two independent radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed for LI-RADS, AASLD, and biopsies. In total, 167 patients underwent both available biopsy and imaging. Of the 137 relevant biopsies, 114 patients had HCC (83.2%), 12 (9%) had non-HCC malignant lesions, and 11 (8%) had benign nodules. The PPV and NPV of the biopsies were 100% and 62%, respectively; 30 biopsies were non-contributive. The PPV and NPV of the LI-RADS categories were 89% and 32.8% for LR-5 and 85.5% and 54.5% for LR-4 + 5 + TIV, respectively. The PPV and NPV of the 2011 AASLD criteria were 93.2% and 35.6%, respectively. The interobserver kappa (k = 0.380) for the LR-5 categories was reasonable. Of 100 LR-5 nodules, 11 were misclassified, in particular one case was a colorectal metastasis, and two cases were cholangiocarcinomas, of which nine were identified through biopsy, whereas six were correctly classified according to LI-RADS (LR-M or LR-TIV). Fifty percent of macrotrabecular HCC and 48.4% of poorly differentiated HCC (Edmonson 3 and 4) were not classified as LR-5. LI-RADS 2018 did not outperform the AASLD 2011 score as a non-invasive diagnosis of HCC. Tumor biopsy allowed restoration of an accurate diagnosis in 11% of LR-5 cases. A combined radiological and histological diagnosis should be considered mandatory for good treatment assessment. Although biopsy is not required for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis when the LI-RADS criteria are met according to current guidelines, our study underscores the limits of radiology and the need for biopsy when hepatocellular carcinoma is suspected. Histological findings could change therapeutics of liver tumors even if only for a small proportion of patients. Histological proof of the type of cancer is a standard in oncology.

Sections du résumé

Background & Aims UNASSIGNED
The diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis relies on non-invasive criteria based on international guidelines. The advent of systemic therapies warrants reconsideration of the role of biopsy specimens in the diagnosis of HCC. Accordingly, we investigated the diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS 2018 and the AASLD 2011 criteria.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Consecutive patients with cirrhosis who underwent a biopsy for suspected HCC between 2015 and 2020 were included. The available imaging studies (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging) were blindly reviewed by two independent radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed for LI-RADS, AASLD, and biopsies.
Results UNASSIGNED
In total, 167 patients underwent both available biopsy and imaging. Of the 137 relevant biopsies, 114 patients had HCC (83.2%), 12 (9%) had non-HCC malignant lesions, and 11 (8%) had benign nodules. The PPV and NPV of the biopsies were 100% and 62%, respectively; 30 biopsies were non-contributive. The PPV and NPV of the LI-RADS categories were 89% and 32.8% for LR-5 and 85.5% and 54.5% for LR-4 + 5 + TIV, respectively. The PPV and NPV of the 2011 AASLD criteria were 93.2% and 35.6%, respectively. The interobserver kappa (k = 0.380) for the LR-5 categories was reasonable. Of 100 LR-5 nodules, 11 were misclassified, in particular one case was a colorectal metastasis, and two cases were cholangiocarcinomas, of which nine were identified through biopsy, whereas six were correctly classified according to LI-RADS (LR-M or LR-TIV). Fifty percent of macrotrabecular HCC and 48.4% of poorly differentiated HCC (Edmonson 3 and 4) were not classified as LR-5.
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
LI-RADS 2018 did not outperform the AASLD 2011 score as a non-invasive diagnosis of HCC. Tumor biopsy allowed restoration of an accurate diagnosis in 11% of LR-5 cases. A combined radiological and histological diagnosis should be considered mandatory for good treatment assessment.
Impact and Implications UNASSIGNED
Although biopsy is not required for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis when the LI-RADS criteria are met according to current guidelines, our study underscores the limits of radiology and the need for biopsy when hepatocellular carcinoma is suspected. Histological findings could change therapeutics of liver tumors even if only for a small proportion of patients. Histological proof of the type of cancer is a standard in oncology.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38234407
doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2023.100957
pii: S2589-5559(23)00288-4
pmc: PMC10792651
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100957

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.

Auteurs

Bleuenn Brusset (B)

Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Service d'hépato-gastroentérologie et d'oncologie digestive, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Marion Jacquemin (M)

Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Service d'hépato-gastroentérologie et d'oncologie digestive, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Yann Teyssier (Y)

Radiology Department, Université Grenoble Alpes, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Gaël S Roth (GS)

Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Service d'hépato-gastroentérologie et d'oncologie digestive, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Institute for Advanced Biosciences-INSERM U1209/CNRS UMR, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Nathalie Sturm (N)

Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, Université Grenoble Alpes, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Matthieu Roustit (M)

Centre d'Investigation Clinique, Université Grenoble Alpes, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Alexandre Bône (A)

Guerbet Research Department, Villepinte, France.

Julien Ghelfi (J)

Radiology Department, Université Grenoble Alpes, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Institute for Advanced Biosciences-INSERM U1209/CNRS UMR, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Charlotte E Costentin (CE)

Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Service d'hépato-gastroentérologie et d'oncologie digestive, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Institute for Advanced Biosciences-INSERM U1209/CNRS UMR, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Thomas Decaens (T)

Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Service d'hépato-gastroentérologie et d'oncologie digestive, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Institute for Advanced Biosciences-INSERM U1209/CNRS UMR, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Classifications MeSH