CT imaging findings in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib: Alternative response criteria (Choi, European Association for the Study of the Liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (mRECIST)) versus RECIST 1.1.

PURPOSE: The first aim was to compare Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) 1.1, modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (mRECIST), Choi and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) evaluations to assess the response to sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The second aim was to describe the evolution of HCC and to identify whether some imaging features are predictive of the absence of response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 60 patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib. Patients must have undergone a scan prior to treatment to identify the number of lesions, size, enhancement and endoportal invasions, and repeat scans thereafter. Computed tomography (CT) scans were analyzed using RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, Choi and EASL criteria. Overall survival was analyzed. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 10.5 months. On the first CT reevaluation, the sorafenib response rates were 20%, 5%, 7% and 3% according to Choi, EASL, mRECIST and RECIST 1.1. The responders based on Choi exhibited significantly better overall survival compared with non-responders (20.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.042, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.186-0.94, p=0.035). A modification of imaging findings was observed in 48.3% of patients, and necrosis was present in 44.1% of patients. CONCLUSION: This study found a significant difference between Choi versus RECIST 1.1, mRECIST and EASL when evaluating the response to sorafenib in HCC patients.

Aorto-enteric fistulas: a physiopathological approach and computed tomography diagnosis.

Infection of an abdominal aortic prosthesis with an enteroprosthetic fistula is a very serious, life-threatening complication, leading sometimes to severe functional consequences, the most serious being amputation. Since the symptoms, if there are any, are often rather non-specific, diagnosis is frequently difficult and has always to be based on a whole series of justifications. Early diagnosis is essential and this fistula should be the first possibility considered in a patient with an abdominal aortic prosthesis who is presenting rectorrhagia or melaena (even if only to a slight degree), sepsis and/or abdominal pain. Although rare, the clinical existence of hypertrophic osteoarthropathy may assist diagnosis. A CT scan is the examination of choice, the criteria providing evidence of a fistula being the presence of gaseous images in a periprosthetic fluid collection, thickening and/or retraction of the intestinal walls in contact, the existence of a false aneurysm, and finally, very rarely, extravasation of contrast agent into the intestinal lumen. The differential diagnoses that may mimic a fistula need to be well known, and can include retroperitoneal fibrosis, an infectious aneurysm, inflammatory or infectious aortitis, and above all, a 'simple' prosthesis infection without fistulisation.