Imaging and prognostic characterization of fat-containing hepatocellular carcinoma subtypes.

PURPOSE: Steatohepatitic hepatocellular carcinoma (SH-HCC) is characterized by intratumoral fat with > 50% inflammatory changes. However, intratumoral fat (with or without inflammation) can also be found in not-otherwise specified HCC (NOS-HCC). We compared the imaging features and outcome of resected HCC containing fat on pathology including SH-HCC (> 50% steatohepatitic component), NOS-HCC with < 50% steatohepatitic component (SH-NOS-HCC), and fatty NOS-HCC (no steatohepatitic component). MATERIAL AND METHODS: From September 2012 to June 2021, 94 patients underwent hepatic resection for fat-containing HCC on pathology. Imaging features and categories were assessed using LIRADS v2018. Fat quantification was performed on chemical-shift MRI. Recurrence-free and overall survival were estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (26%) had nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The median intra-tumoral fat fraction was 8%, with differences between SH-HCC and SH-NOS-HCC (9.5% vs. 5% p = 0.03). There was no difference in major LI-RADS features between all groups; most tumors were classified as LR-4/5. A mosaic architecture on MRI was rare (7%) in SH-HCC, a fat in mass on CT was more frequently depicted (48%) in SH-HCC. A combination of NASH with no mosaic architecture on MRI or NASH with fat in mass on CT yielded excellent specificity for diagnosing SH-HCC (97.6% and 97.7%, respectively). The median recurrence-free and overall survival were 58 and 87 months, with no difference between groups (p = 0.18 and p = 0.69). CONCLUSION: In patients with NASH, an SH-HCC may be suspected in L4/LR-5 observations with no mosaic architecture at MRI or with fat in mass on CT. Oncological outcomes appear similar between fat-containing HCC subtypes.

Pathological overview of steatohepatitic hepatocellular carcinoma in a surgical series.

AIMS: According to the last WHO classification, steatohepatitic hepatocellular carcinoma (SH-HCC) is recognized as a distinct HCC subtype, even though a consensual definition is still lacking. The objectives of the study were to carefully describe the morphological features of SH-HCC and evaluate its impact on prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a single-centre retrospective study including 297 surgically resected HCC. Pathological features including SH criteria (steatosis, ballooning, Mallory-Denk bodies, fibrosis, and inflammation) were assessed. SH-HCC was defined by the presence of at least four of the five SH criteria and the SH component represented >50% of the tumour area. According to this definition, 39 (13%) HCC cases corresponded to SH-HCC and 30 cases (10%) corresponded to HCC with an SH component (<50%). SH criteria in SH-HCC and non-SH-HCC were distributed as follows: ballooning (100% versus 11%), fibrosis (100% versus 81%), inflammation (100% versus 67%), steatosis (92% versus 8%), and Mallory-Denk bodies (74% versus 3%). Inflammation markers (c-reactive protein [CRP] and serum amyloid A [SAA]) were significantly more expressed in SH-HCC compared to non-SH-HCC (82% versus 14%, P = <0.001). Five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) were similar for SH-HCC and non-SH-HCC (P = 0.413 and P = 0.866, respectively). The percentage of SH component does not impact OS and RFS. CONCLUSION: We confirm in a large cohort the relatively high prevalence (13%) of SH-HCC. Ballooning is the most specific criteria for this subtype. The percentage of the SH component does not impact prognosis.

Imaging features of histological subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma: Implication for LI-RADS.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The histopathological subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are associated with distinct clinical features and prognoses. This study aims to report Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)-defined imaging features of different HCC subtypes in a cohort of resected tumours and to assess the influence of HCC subtypes on computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) LI-RADS categorisation in the subgroup of high-risk patients. METHODS: This retrospective institutional review board-approved study included patients with resected HCCs and available histopathological classification. Three radiologists independently reviewed preoperative CT and MRI exams. The readers evaluated the presence of imaging features according to LI-RADS v2018 definitions and provided a LI-RADS category in patients at high risk of HCC. Differences in LI-RADS features and categorisations were assessed for not otherwise specified (NOS-HCC), steatohepatitic (SH-HCC), and macrotrabecular-massive (MTM-HCC) types of HCCs. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven patients (median age 64.0 years, 215 [77.6%] men) were analysed, which involved 295 HCCs. There were 197 (66.7%) NOS-HCCs, 62 (21.0%) SH-HCCs, 23 (7.8%) MTM-HCCs, and 13 (4.5%) other rare subtypes. The following features were more frequent in MTM-HCC: elevated α-foetoprotein serum levels (p <0.001), tumour-in-vein (p <0.001 on CT, p ≤0.052 on MRI), presence of at least 1 LR-M feature (p ≤0.010 on CT), infiltrative appearance (p ≤0.032 on CT), necrosis or severe ischaemia (p ≤0.038 on CT), and larger size (p ≤0.006 on CT, p ≤0.011 on MRI). SH-HCC was associated with fat in mass (p <0.001 on CT, p ≤0.002 on MRI). The distribution of the LI-RADS major features and categories in high-risk patients did not significantly differ among the 3 main HCC subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of LI-RADS major features and categories is not different among the HCC subtypes. Nevertheless, careful analysis of tumour-in-vein, LR-M, and ancillary features as well as clinico-biological data can provide information for the non-invasive diagnosis of HCC subtypes. LAY SUMMARY: In high-risk patients, the overall distribution of LI-RADS major features and categories is not different among the histological subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma, but tumour-in-vein, presence of LR-M features, and ancillary features can provide information for the non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma subtypes.

Enhancing capsule in hepatocellular carcinoma: intra-individual comparison between CT and MRI with extracellular contrast agent.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) to that of magnetic resonance imaging obtained with extracellular contrast agent (ECA-MRI) for the diagnosis of a tumor capsule in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using histopathologic findings as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with pathologically-proven resected HCCs with available preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and ECA-MRI examinations. Two blinded radiologists independently reviewed contrast-enhanced CT and ECA-MRI examinations to assess the presence of an enhancing capsule. The histopathological analysis of resected specimens was used as reference for the diagnosis of a tumor capsule. The sensitivity and specificity of CT and ECA-MRI for the diagnosis of a tumor capsule were determined, and an intra-individual comparison of imaging modalities was performed using McNemar test. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Kappa test. RESULTS: The study population included 199 patients (157 men, 42 women; mean age: 61.3 ± 13.0 [SD] years) with 210 HCCs (mean size 56.7 ± 43.7 [SD] mm). A tumor capsule was present in 157/210 (74.8%) HCCs at histopathologic analysis. Capsule enhancement was more frequently visualized on ECA-MRI (R1, 68.6%; R2, 71.9%) than on CT (R1, 44.3%, P < 0.001; R2, 47.6%, P < 0.001). The sensitivity of ECA-MRI was better for the diagnosis of histopathological tumor capsule (R1, 76.4%; R2, 79.6%; P < 0.001), while CT had a greater specificity (R1, 84.9%; R2, 83.0%; P < 0.001). Inter-reader agreement was moderate both on CT (kappa = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.66) and ECA-MRI (kappa = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45-0.70). CONCLUSION: Capsule enhancement was more frequently visualized on ECA-MRI than on CT. The sensitivity of ECA-MRI was greater than that of CT, but the specificity of CT was better than that of ECA-MRI.