Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow-up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT-indeterminate or MRI-indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate-enhanced or extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI over CT.

Conclusion

CT, extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross-sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology 2018;67:401-421).

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a pathogenically complex, chronic, fibroinflammatory disorder of the bile ducts without known etiology or effective pharmacotherapy. Emerging in vitro and in vivo evidence support fundamental pathophysiologic mechanisms in PSC centered on enterohepatic circulation. To date, no studies have specifically interrogated the chemical footprint of enterohepatic circulation in PSC. Herein, we evaluated the metabolome and lipidome of portal venous blood and bile obtained at the time of liver transplantation in patients with PSC (n = 7) as compared to individuals with noncholestatic, end-stage liver disease (viral, metabolic, etc. (disease control, DC, n = 19)) and to nondisease controls (NC, living donors, n = 12). Global metabolomic and lipidomic profiling was performed on serum derived from portal venous blood (portal serum) and bile using ultraperformance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) and differential mobility spectroscopy-mass spectroscopy (DMS-MS; complex lipid platform). The Mann⁻Whitney U test was used to identify metabolites that significantly differed between groups. Principal-component analysis (PCA) showed significant separation of both PSC and DC from NC for both portal serum and bile. Metabolite set enrichment analysis of portal serum and bile demonstrated that the liver-disease cohorts (PSC and DC) exhibited similar enrichment in several metabolite categories compared to NC. Interestingly, the bile in PSC was uniquely enriched for dipeptide and polyamine metabolites. Finally, analysis of patient-matched portal serum and biliary metabolome revealed that these biological fluids were more homogeneous in PSC than in DC or NC, suggesting aberrant bile formation and enterohepatic circulation. In summary, PSC and DC patients exhibited alterations in several metabolites in portal serum and bile, while PSC patients exhibited a unique bile metabolome. These specific alterations in PSC are amenable to hypothesis testing and, potentially, therapeutic pharmacologic manipulation.

Unlabelled

The current system granting liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) additional Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) points is controversial due to geographic disparity and uncertainty regarding optimal prioritization of candidates. The current national policy assigns a MELD exception score of 22 immediately upon listing of eligible patients with HCC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential effects of delays in granting these exception points on transplant rates for HCC and non-HCC patients. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data and liver simulated allocation modeling software and modeled (1) a 3-month delay before granting a MELD exception score of 25, (2) a 6-month delay before granting a score of 28, and (3) a 9-month delay before granting a score of 29. Of all candidates waitlisted between January 1 and December 31, 2010 (n = 28,053), 2773 (9.9%) had an HCC MELD exception. For HCC candidates, transplant rates would be 108.7, 65.0, 44.2, and 33.6 per 100 person-years for the current policy and for 3-, 6-, and 9-month delays, respectively. Corresponding rates would be 30.1, 32.5, 33.9, and 34.8 for non-HCC candidates.

Conclusion

A delay of 6-9 months would eliminate the geographic variability in the discrepancy between HCC and non-HCC transplant rates under current policy and may allow for more equal access to transplant for all candidates.

Introduction

Small studies from outside of the USA suggest excellent outcomes after surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with vascular invasion. The study aims to (1) compare overall survival after surgical resection and systemic therapy among patients with HCC and vascular invasion and (2) determine factors associated with receipt of surgical resection in a US population.

Methods

HCC patients with AJCC clinical TNM stage 7th T3BN0M0 diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 from the National Cancer Database were analyzed. Cox and logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with overall survival and receipt of surgical resection.

Results

Of 11,259 patients with T3BN0M0 HCC, 325 (2.9%) and 4,268 (37.9%) received surgical resection and systemic therapy, respectively. In multivariable analysis, surgical resection was associated with improved survival compared to systemic therapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.496, 95% confidence interval: 0.426-0.578) with a median survival of 21.4 and 8.1 months, respectively. Superiority of surgical resection was observed in noncirrhotic and cirrhotic subgroups and propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted analysis. Asians were more likely to receive surgical resection, whereas Charlson comorbidity ≥3, elevated alpha-fetoprotein, smaller tumor size, care in a community cancer program, and the South or West region were associated with a lower likelihood of surgical resection.

Conclusion

HCC patients with vascular invasion may benefit from surgical resection compared to systemic therapies. Demographic and clinical features of HCC patients and region and type of treating facility were associated with surgical resection versus systemic treatment.

Living donor liver transplantation has expanded in recent years, particularly in North America. As experience with this procedure has matured over the last 25 years, centers are increasingly faced with potential living donors who are more medically complex. As donors move through the evaluation process, completing the informed consent process continues to be challenged by a paucity of granular data demonstrating long-term outcomes and overall safety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population. Two recently published studies examined long-term outcomes post-living liver donation using Korean registry data and reported similar results, with excellent overall survival when compared to appropriately matched controls. However, the authors of these studies were presented differently, with one reporting an alarmist view based on one aspect of a suboptimal analysis approach using an inappropriate comparator group. Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discusses these two studies and their potential impact on living liver donation in North America, ultimately highlighting the importance of scientific integrity in data presentation and dissemination when using transplant registry data.