OBJECTIVE: To examine the diagnostic agreement of preoperative needle core biopsy (NCB) grading of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with the final surgical pathologic tumor grade. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Some centers have adopted protocols for selecting patients with HCC for transplantation based on tumor grade as determined by preoperative NCB. The validity of NCB to predict final tumor grade has not been previously assessed. METHODS: A total of 211 patients who underwent hepatic resection, open radiofrequency, or transplantation for HCC between 1998 and 2004 were identified. Clinicopathologic, NCB, and surgical data were collected and analyzed using chi and kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 120 (67.4%) of the 178 who underwent resection or transplantation had an NCB. On preoperative NCB, the majority of HCC cases were classified as well-differentiated (n = 35; 37.6%) or moderately differentiated (n = 44; 47.3%), while 14 (15.1%) cases were categorized as poorly differentiated. In contrast, when tumor grading was based on the final surgical specimen, there was a significantly higher proportion of HCC cases graded as poorly differentiated (well-differentiated, n = 34; 36.6%; moderately differentiated, n = 33; 35.5%; poorly differentiated, n = 26; 27.9%) (P < 0.05). The overall percent agreement of NCB and surgical pathology to determine tumor grade was poor (kappa = 0.18, P < 0.0001). Whereas final pathologic tumor grade predicted the presence of microscopic vascular invasion (well, 15.7%; moderate; 31.9%, poor; 58.4%; P = 0.001), NCB grade did not (well, 23.7%; moderate, 28.0%; poor, 25.4%; P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Selection of candidates for transplantation based on NCB tumor grade may be misleading, as NCB tumor grade often did not correlate with grade or presence of microscopic vascular invasion on final pathology. Clinicomorphologic criteria (tumor size, number) should remain the major determinants of eligibility for transplantation.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the diagnostic agreement of preoperative needle core biopsy (NCB) grading of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with the final surgical pathologic tumor grade. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Some centers have adopted protocols for selecting patients with HCC for transplantation based on tumor grade as determined by preoperative NCB. The validity of NCB to predict final tumor grade has not been previously assessed. METHODS: A total of 211 patients who underwent hepatic resection, open radiofrequency, or transplantation for HCC between 1998 and 2004 were identified. Clinicopathologic, NCB, and surgical data were collected and analyzed using chi and kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 120 (67.4%) of the 178 who underwent resection or transplantation had an NCB. On preoperative NCB, the majority of HCC cases were classified as well-differentiated (n = 35; 37.6%) or moderately differentiated (n = 44; 47.3%), while 14 (15.1%) cases were categorized as poorly differentiated. In contrast, when tumor grading was based on the final surgical specimen, there was a significantly higher proportion of HCC cases graded as poorly differentiated (well-differentiated, n = 34; 36.6%; moderately differentiated, n = 33; 35.5%; poorly differentiated, n = 26; 27.9%) (P < 0.05). The overall percent agreement of NCB and surgical pathology to determine tumor grade was poor (kappa = 0.18, P < 0.0001). Whereas final pathologic tumor grade predicted the presence of microscopic vascular invasion (well, 15.7%; moderate; 31.9%, poor; 58.4%; P = 0.001), NCB grade did not (well, 23.7%; moderate, 28.0%; poor, 25.4%; P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Selection of candidates for transplantation based on NCB tumor grade may be misleading, as NCB tumor grade often did not correlate with grade or presence of microscopic vascular invasion on final pathology. Clinicomorphologic criteria (tumor size, number) should remain the major determinants of eligibility for transplantation.
Authors: Francis Y Yao; Linda Ferrell; Nathan M Bass; Peter Bacchetti; Nancy L Ascher; John P Roberts Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Jeffrey D Wayne; Gregory Y Lauwers; Iwao Ikai; Dorota A Doherty; Jacques Belghiti; Yoshio Yamaoka; Jean-Marc Regimbeau; David M Nagorney; Kim-Anh Do; Lee M Ellis; Steven A Curley; Raphael E Pollock; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: H Kirimlioglu; I Dvorchick; K Ruppert; S Finkelstein; J W Marsh; S Iwatsuki; A Bonham; B Carr; M Nalesnik; G Michalopoulos; T Starzl; J Fung; A Demetris Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Nestor F Esnaola; Gregory Y Lauwers; Nadeem Q Mirza; David M Nagorney; Dorota Doherty; Iwao Ikai; Yoshio Yamaoka; Jean Marc Regimbeau; Jacques Belghiti; Steven A Curley; Lee M Ellis; J Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2002 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Sasan Roayaie; Jason S Frischer; Sukru H Emre; Thomas M Fishbein; Patricia A Sheiner; Max Sung; Charles M Miller; Myron E Schwartz Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Gregory Y Lauwers; Nestor F Esnaola; Kim-Anh Do; Jacques Belghiti; Nadeem Mirza; Steven A Curley; Lee M Ellis; Jean-Marc Regimbeau; Asif Rashid; Karen R Cleary; David M Nagorney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jae Hyun Han; Dong Goo Kim; Gun Hyung Na; Eun Young Kim; Soo Ho Lee; Tae Ho Hong; Young Kyoung You Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Richard S Young; Mohammed Aldiwani; Abdul R Hakeem; Amit Nair; Ashley Guthrie; Judy Wyatt; Darren Treanor; Gareth Morris-Stiff; Rebecca L Jones; K Rajendra Prasad Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 3.647