Comparing Survival Outcomes of Patients With LI-RADS-M Hepatocellular Carcinomas and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: There is a sparsity of data evaluating outcomes of patients with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) (LR)-M lesions. PURPOSE: To compare overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) between hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) meeting LR-M criteria and to evaluate factors associated with prognosis. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: Patients at risk for HCC with at least one LR-M lesion with histologic diagnosis, from 8 academic centers, yielding 120 patients with 120 LR-M lesions (84 men [mean age 62 years] and 36 women [mean age 66 years]). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 1.5 and 3.0 T/3D T1 -weighted gradient echo, T2 -weighted fast spin-echo. ASSESSMENT: The imaging categorization of each lesion as LR-M was made clinically by a single radiologist at each site and patient outcome measures were collected. STATISTICAL TESTS: OS, PFS, and potential independent predictors were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard model. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with 120 LR-M lesions were included; on histology 65 were HCC and 55 were iCCA. There was similar median OS for patients with LR-M HCC compared to patients with iCCA (738 days vs. 769 days, P = 0.576). There were no significant differences between patients with HCC and iCCA in terms of sex (47:18 vs. 37:18, P = 0.549), age (63.0 ± 8.4 vs. 63.4 ± 7.8, P = 0.847), etiology of liver disease (P = 0.202), presence of cirrhosis (100% vs. 100%, P = 1.000), tumor size (4.73 ± 3.28 vs. 4.75 ± 2.58, P = 0.980), method of lesion histologic diagnosis (P = 0.646), and proportion of patients who underwent locoregional therapy (60.0% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.100) or surgery (134.8 ± 165.5 vs. 142.5 ± 205.6, P = 0.913). Using multivariable analysis, nonsurgical compared to surgical management (HR, 4.58), larger tumor size (HR, 1.19), and higher MELD score (HR, 1.12) were independently associated with worse OS. DATA CONCLUSION: There was similar OS in patients with LR-M HCC and LR-M iCCA, suggesting that LR-M imaging features may more closely reflect patient outcomes than histology. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Macroscopic Fat in Adrenocortical Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the number and quality of reports of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) containing macroscopic fat; this information may inform guidelines for diagnosis and management of ACC. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A comprehensive search of databases of published studies was performed. Two reviewers independently selected original research, case series, or case reports of ACC with macroscopic fat on imaging and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. RESULTS. Three case reports and one retrospective study comprising a total of seven cases of ACC (lesion size: range, 6.5-22 cm) with macroscopic fat were included. ACC was symptomatic in all patients; neither locally invasive features nor metastases were reported. Four cases had less than 5% macroscopic fat on imaging, and the percentage fat on imaging was not reported for the remaining three cases. With regard to the risk of bias, one case had high risk for the index test domain because of potentially unreliable determination of macroscopic fat (i.e., no pathologic confirmation). All seven cases (from four studies) had unclear risk for the reference standard domain because there was insufficient information about the reference standard to determine whether ACC was correctly diagnosed. All studies were at low risk of bias in the flow and timing domain. CONCLUSION. There are few reports of macroscopic fat in ACC detected on imaging studies; among the reports of macroscopic fat in ACC, tumors were large (> 6 cm) and had a small proportion of gross fat (< 5%). The reliability of reported cases is questionable primarily because of insufficient details about pathologic diagnosis. Based on this information, a change in guideline recommendations may not be warranted. However, consideration of follow-up or biopsy of patients with large symptomatic tumors (> 6 cm) containing a small proportion of fat (< 5%) may be appropriate.