Time Trends Analysis of Cervical Cancer Incidence in Cluj County, Romania, Using Data from a Population-Based Cancer Registry.

(1) Background: Romania has one of the highest cervical cancer incidence rates in Europe. In Cluj County, the first screening program was initiated in 1998. We aimed to investigate the time trends of cervical cancer incidence in women from Cluj County and to evaluate the data quality at the Cancer Registry. (2) Methods: We calculated time trends of standardized incidence rates in the period 1998-2014 and the Annual Percent Change (APC%). To assess data quality, we used the indicators: mortality/incidence ratio (M/I), percentage of cases declared only at death (DOD%), and percentage of cases with pathological confirmation (PC%). (3) Results: The standardized incidence rate increased steadily, from 23.74 cases/100,000 in 1998, to 32/100,000 in 2014, with an APC% of 2.49% (p < 0.05). The rise in incidence affected both squamous cell carcinoma (APC% 2.49%) (p < 0.05) and cervical adenocarcinoma (APC% 10.54%) (p < 0.05). The M/I ratio was 0.29, DOD% 2.66%, and MC% 94.8%. The last two parameters are within the silver standard concerning data quality. (4) Conclusions. Our study revealed an ascending trend of cervical cancer incidence, more consistent for adenocarcinoma, in the context of a newly introduced screening program and partially due to the improvement of the quality of case reporting at the Cancer Registry from Cluj.

Diagnostic challenges in non-cirrhotic portal hypertension - porto sinusoidal vascular disease.

Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension consists of a group of diseases characterized by signs and complications of portal hypertension, which differ from cirrhosis through histological alterations, hemodynamic characterization and, clinical outcome. Because of the similarities in clinical presentation and imaging signs, frequently these patients, and particularly those with porto-sinusoidal vascular disease (PSVD), are misdiagnosed as having liver cirrhosis and thus raising difficulties in their diagnosis. The most challenging differentiation to be considered is between PSVD and cirrhosis and, although not pathognomonic, liver biopsy is still the standard of diagnosis. Although they still require extended validation before being broadly used, new non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of porto-sinusoidal vascular disease, like transient elastography, contrast-enhanced ultrasound or metabolomic profiling, have shown promising results. Another issue is the differentiation between PSVD and chronic extrahepatic portal vein obstruction, especially now when it is known that 40% of patients suffering from PSVD develop portal vein thrombosis. In this particular case, once the portal vein thrombosis occurred, the diagnosis of PSVD is impossible according to the current guidelines. Moreover, so far, the differentiation between PSVD and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome has not been clear so far in particular circumstances. In this review we highlighted the diagnostic challenges regarding the PSVD, as well as the current techniques used in the evaluation of these patients.

Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.