Search

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the optimal radiologic method to determine Milan criteria (MC) for the prediction of recurrence in patients who underwent locoregional treatment (LRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and subsequent liver transplantation (LT). Methods: This retrospective study included 121 HCC patients who underwent LRT and had both liver dynamic CT and MRI. They were classified with MC using four cross combinations of two imaging modalities (CT and MRI) and two diagnostic criteria (modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [mRECIST] and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System treatment response algorithm [LI-RADS TRA]). Competing risk regression was performed to analyze the time to recurrence after LT. The predictive abilities of the four methods for recurrence were evaluated using the time-dependent area under the curve (AUC). Results: Competing risk regression analyses found that beyond MC determined by MRI with mRECIST was independently associated with recurrence (hazard ratio, 6.926; p = 0.001). With mRECIST, MRI showed significantly higher AUCs than CT at 3 years and 5 years after LT (0.597 vs. 0.756, p = 0.012 at 3 years; and 0.588 vs. 0.733, p = 0.024 at 5 years). Using the pathologic reference standard, MRI with LI-RADS TRA showed higher sensitivity (61.5%) than CT with LI-RADS TRA (30.8%, p < 0.001) or MRI with mRECIST (38.5%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: MRI with mRECIST was the optimal radiologic method to determine MC for the prediction of post-LT recurrence in HCC patients with prior LRT. Key Points: • MRI with modified RECIST (mRECIST) is the optimal preoperative method to determine Milan criteria for the prediction of post-transplant HCC recurrence in patients with prior locoregional treatment. • With mRECIST, MRI was better than CT for the prediction of post-transplant recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The 8th edition of the AJCC staging system for pancreatic cancer has been validated for pathological staging; however, its suitability for clinical staging is still uncertain. Clinical staging is important for pancreatic cancer because surgical resection is not suitable for most patients. We validated the prognostic performance and suitability of the current staging system for clinical staging. In our analysis using a prospectively collected pancreatic cancer cohort database, survival difference was not shown between stage IB and IIA, which were divided by the new size-based T3 criterion. Among the patients who received surgery, the pathological stage was more advanced than the clinical stage in 57.3%, mostly due to a false-negative lymph node in clinical staging. These findings suggest that the 8th edition AJCC staging system is not validated for clinical staging and separate criteria more suitable for clinical staging should be established. The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for pancreatic cancer (PC) has been validated for pathological staging; however, its significance for clinical staging remains uncertain. We validated the prognostic performance and suitability of the current staging system for the clinical staging of PC. We identified 1043 patients from our PC registry who were staged by imaging according to the 8th edition staging system and conducted analysis, including overall survival (OS) comparison. Gradual prognostic stratification according to stage hierarchy yielded significant OS differences between stage groups, except between stage I and II (p = 0.193). A substage comparison revealed no survival differences between IB (T2N0) and IIA (T3N0), which were divided by the T3 criterion only (p = 0.278). A higher N stage had significantly shorter OS than a lower N stage (all pairwise p < 0.05). However, among the 150 patients who received upfront surgery, the pathological stage was more advanced than the clinical stage in 86 (57.3%), mostly due to a false-negative cN0 (70.9%). Our results suggest that the new definition of T3 and the number-based N criteria in the 8th edition AJCC staging system may be not adequate for clinical staging. Establishing separate criteria more suitable for clinical staging should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: According to the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), the LI-RADS category M (LR-M), which are probably or definitely malignant but are not specific for hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), does not exclude HCCs. A gap in knowledge remains, including their characteristics and recurrence of HCCs categorized as LR-M.Purpose: To compare the characteristics of HCCs categorized as LR-M with HCCs categorized as LR-4 or LR-5 (LR-4/5) using the LI-RADS version 2018 and evaluate the relationship of these categories with the risk of early recurrence after curative resections of single HCCs.Study Type: Retrospective.Subjects: Two hundred and eighty-one patients (mean age, 57 years; 191 men and 90 women) who underwent curative resections for single HCCs and preoperative contrast-enhanced MRI between 2015 and 2017.Field Strength/sequence: 3T Dual gradient-echo T1 WI with in- and opposed-phase, turbo spin-echo T2 WI, diffusion-weighted echo-planar images, and three-dimensional gradient-echo T1 WI before and after administration of contrast agent.Assessment: MRI features according to the LI-RADS version 2018 were evaluated and LI-RADS category were assigned for each observation. Clinical, imaging, and histopathological features were compared based on LI-RADS categorization. Early recurrence rates (<2 years) and associated factors were also evaluated.Statistical Tests: Fisher's exact test, two-sample t test after satisfying assumption of normality through Shapiro-Wilk test, Fleiss κ coefficient, Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test.Results: Forty-one HCCs (14.6%) were categorized as LR-M and 240 HCCs (85.4%) were categorized as LR-4/5. LR-M HCCs showed poorer differentiation than LR-4/5 HCCs. In the multivariate analysis, the LR-M category was an independent predictor for early recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.904; 95% confidence interval, 1.024-3.542; P < 0.05). Early recurrence rates were significantly higher in patients with LR-M HCCs than in patients with LR-4/5 HCCs (32.0% vs. 18.4%, respectively, P < 0 05).Data Conclusion: Compared to LR-4/5 HCCs, LR-M HCCs were associated with poorer tumor differentiation and higher early recurrence rates after curative resections of single HCCs.Level Of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venous invasion is not included in the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) staging, and its correlation with prognosis remains unclear. We evaluated the prognostic impact of radiographic portal/superior mesenteric vein (PV/SMV) invasion, and its possibility of complementing T staging. We identified patients with non-metastatic PDAC using our institutional cohort, and divided them according to PV/SMV invasion at imaging, defined as >180-degree tumor-vessel interface or contour deformity. We conducted Cox proportional hazard regression, and compared survival in the original and 1:1 propensity score matched datasets. We identified 454 patients [PV/SMV(+): 172; PV/SMV(−): 282]. In the multivariate analysis, PV/SMV invasion, age (≥70 years), performance status, tumor size (2–4, >4 cm), lymph nodes >4, and arterial invasion was correlated with prognosis. The PV/SMV(+) group had a shorter overall survival (OS) than the PV/SMV(−) group in the original (14.4 vs. 20.9 months; P < 0.001) and matched datasets (14.3 vs. 17.2 months; P = 0.009). Among patients without arterial invasion (cT1–cT3), the PV/SMV(+) group had a shorter OS (15.9 vs. 21.2 months; P = 0.002). Moreover, their OS did not differ from that of patients with arterial invasion (cT4) (15.9 vs. 14.4 months; P = 0.907). Patients with vessel (artery/vein) invasion had a shorter OS than those without vessel invasion (14.5 vs. 21.2 months; P < 0.001). Radiographic PV/SMV invasion in non-metastatic PDAC was correlated with a poor prognosis. It could identify a group with shorter OS among patients without arterial invasion (cT1–cT3). It is suggested that inclusion of PV/SMV invasion in clinical T4 criteria should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]