1
|
van der Lei S, Opperman J, Dijkstra M, Kors N, Boon R, van den Bemd BAT, Timmer FEF, Nota IMGC, van den Bergh JE, de Vries JJJ, Scheffer HJ, Geboers B, Neuss T, Schouten E, Lissenberg-Witte BI, Puijk RS, Meijerink MR. The Added Diagnostic Value of Transcatheter CT Hepatic Arteriography for Intraprocedural Detection of Previously Unknown Colorectal Liver Metastases During Percutaneous Ablation and Impact on the Definitive Treatment Plan. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2023; 46:1257-1266. [PMID: 37491521 PMCID: PMC10471708 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-023-03508-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Accepted: 06/29/2023] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study assessed the diagnostic value of CT hepatic arteriography (CTHA) for the intraprocedural detection of previously unknown colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and the impact on the definitive treatment plan. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients treated with CTHA-guided percutaneous ablation for CRLM between January 2012 and March 2022 were identified from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE). Radiology reports of the ablative procedure and follow-up imaging were reviewed to see if (a) previously unknown CRLM were detected intra-procedurally and if (b) new CRLM, potentially missed on CTHA, appeared within 6 months following the procedure; three abdominal radiologists re-reviewed the baseline CTHA scans of these patients with early recurrence. To ratify immediate ablations of concomitantly detected CRLM, the upper limit of false positives was predefined at 10%. RESULTS One hundred and fifty-two patients were included. With CTHA, a total of 17 additional tumours in 15 patients were diagnosed and treated immediately, two representing disappeared tumours following systemic chemotherapy. Compared to the conventional contrast-enhanced (ce)CT, ceMRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT, adding CTHA was superior for the detection of CRLM (P < .001). Within 12 months of follow-up 121, new CRLM appeared in 49/152 patients (32.2%); retrospective blinded assessment revealed 56 to already be visible on the baseline CTHA scan (46%); four lesions without substrate on follow-up scans were considered false positives (n = 4/60; 7%). Arterial ring enhancement was the most frequently reported imaging characteristic (n = 45/60; 75%). CONCLUSION The subsequent use of CTHA has added value for the detection of previously unknown and vanished CRLM. Taking into account the low number of false positives (7%) and the favourable safety profile of percutaneous ablation, we believe that immediate ablation of typical ring-enhancing supplementary tumours is justified and sufficiently validated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level 3; individual cross-sectional study with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan van der Lei
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Jip Opperman
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- NWZ Group, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Madelon Dijkstra
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nikita Kors
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rianne Boon
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bente A T van den Bemd
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Florentine E F Timmer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Irene M G C Nota
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke E van den Bergh
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jan J J de Vries
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hester J Scheffer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bart Geboers
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Timothy Neuss
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evelien Schouten
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Robbert S Puijk
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn R Meijerink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- NWZ Group, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chen QF, Li W, Yu SCH, Chou YH, Rhim H, Yang X, Shen L, Dong A, Huang T, Huang J, Zhang F, Fan W, Zhao M, Gu Y, Huang Z, Zuo M, Zhai B, Xiao Y, Kuang M, Li J, Han J, Song W, Ma J, Wu P. Consensus of Minimally Invasive and Multidisciplinary Comprehensive Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma - 2020 Guangzhou Recommendations. Front Oncol 2021; 11:621834. [PMID: 34277397 PMCID: PMC8284077 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.621834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
In China, the majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) result from long-term infection of hepatitis B. Pathologically, HCC is characterized by rich blood supply, multicentric origins, early vascular invasion and intrahepatic metastasis. Therefore, HCC is not a local disease but a systemic disease at the beginning of its occurrence. For this reason, a comprehensive treatment strategy should be adopted in the management of HCC, including local treatments (such as surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, chemical ablation and cryoablation, etc.), organ-level treatments [such as transcatheter arterial infusion of chemotherapy and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)], and systemic treatments (such as immunotherapy, antiviral therapy and molecular targeted therapy, etc.). This consensus sets forth the minimally-invasive and multidisciplinary comprehensive guideline of HCC, focusing on the following eight aspects (1) using hepaticarteriography, CT hepatic arteriography (CTHA), CT arterial portography (CTAP), lipiodol CT (Lp-CT), TACE-CT to find the intrahepatic lesion and make precise staging (2) TACE combined with ablation or ablation as the first choice of treatment for early stage or small HCC, while other therapies are considered only when ablation is not applicable (3) infiltrating HCC should be regarded as an independent subtype of HCC (4) minimally-invasive comprehensive treatment could be adopted in treating metastatic lymph nodes (5) multi-level subdivision of M-staging should be used for individualized treatment and predicting prognosis (6) HCC with severe hepatic decompensation is the only candidate criterion for liver transplantation (7) bio-immunotherapy, traditional Chinese medicine therapy, antiviral therapy, and psychosocial and psychopharmacological interventions should be advocated through the whole course of HCC treatment (8) implementation of multicenter randomized controlled trials of minimally-invasive therapy versus surgery for early and intermediate stage HCC is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qi-Feng Chen
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wang Li
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Simon Chun-Ho Yu
- Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Yi-Hong Chou
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Technology, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu, China.,Department of Radiology, Taipei General Hospital and School of Medicine, National YangMing University, Taipei, China.,Department of Radiology, Yeezen General Hospital, Taoyuan, China
| | - Hyunchul Rhim
- Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Xiaoming Yang
- Image-Guided Bio-Molecular Intervention Research and Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Lujun Shen
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Annan Dong
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Tao Huang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jinhua Huang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fujun Zhang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Weijun Fan
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ming Zhao
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yangkui Gu
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhimei Huang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Mengxuan Zuo
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Bo Zhai
- Department of Surgery, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine Renji Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Yueyong Xiao
- Department of Radiology, The First Medical Centre, Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ming Kuang
- Department of Liver Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jiaping Li
- Department of Interventional Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jianjun Han
- Department of Intervention, Shandong Cancer Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Wei Song
- Department of Oncology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China
| | - Jie Ma
- Department of Biotherapy, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Peihong Wu
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Puijk RS, Nieuwenhuizen S, van den Bemd BAT, Ruarus AH, Geboers B, Vroomen LGPH, Muglia R, de Jong MC, de Vries JJJ, Scheffer HJ, van den Tol PMP, Meijerink MR. Transcatheter CT Hepatic Arteriography Compared with Conventional CT Fluoroscopy Guidance in Percutaneous Thermal Ablation to Treat Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Single-Center Comparative Analysis of 2 Historical Cohorts. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2020; 31:1772-1783. [PMID: 32981819 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2020.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2019] [Revised: 04/30/2020] [Accepted: 05/04/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate safety and efficacy of CT hepatic arteriography compared with conventional CT fluoroscopy guidance in percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) ablation to treat colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). MATERIALS AND METHODS This single-center comparative, retrospective study analyzed data of 108 patients treated with 156 percutaneous ablation procedures (42 CT fluoroscopy guidance [25 RF ablation, 17 MW ablation]; 114 CT hepatic arteriography guidance [18 RF ablation, 96 MW ablation]) for 260 CRLM between January 2009 and May 2019. Local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) was assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. LTPFS and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS There were no complications related to the transarterial catheter procedure. CT hepatic arteriography proved superior to CT fluoroscopy regarding 2-year LTPFS (18/202 [8.9%] vs 19/58 [32.8%]; P < .001, respectively). CT hepatic arteriography versus CT fluoroscopy (hazard ratio = 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.54; P < .001) and MW ablation versus RF ablation (hazard ratio = 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-1.12; P = .094) were positive predictors for longer LTPFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that CT hepatic arteriography versus CT fluoroscopy (hazard ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.90; P = .025) was associated with a significantly superior LTPFS. OS was similar between the 2 cohorts (P = .3). CONCLUSIONS While adding procedure time and marginal patient burden, transcatheter CT hepatic arteriography-guided ablation was associated with increased local disease control and superior LTPFS compared with conventional CT fluoroscopy. CT hepatic arteriography represents a safe and valid alternative to CT fluoroscopy, as it reduces the number of repeat ablations required without adding risk or detrimental effect on survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robbert S Puijk
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
| | - Sanne Nieuwenhuizen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Bente A T van den Bemd
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Alette H Ruarus
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Bart Geboers
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Laurien G P H Vroomen
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Riccardo Muglia
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Marcus C de Jong
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Jan J J de Vries
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Hester J Scheffer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Petrousjka M P van den Tol
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn R Meijerink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chiba A, Harada K, Ohashi Y, Numasawa K, Imai T, Hayasaka S. Evaluation of computed tomography arterial portography scan timing using different bolus tracking methods. Radiol Phys Technol 2020; 13:92-97. [DOI: 10.1007/s12194-020-00556-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2019] [Revised: 01/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2020] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
|
5
|
Diaphragm height varies with arm position: comparison between angiography and CT. Jpn J Radiol 2016; 34:724-729. [PMID: 27613643 DOI: 10.1007/s11604-016-0579-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2015] [Accepted: 08/29/2016] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate how elevation of the arms affects diaphragm height. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed angiography and computed tomography (CT) portography data from 44 patients who were treated for hepatocellular carcinoma at our institution from July 2013 to May 2014. Diaphragm height was determined independently by two radiologists as the distance from the upper edge of the first lumbar vertebra to the highest point of the right diaphragm. The differences in height between angiography and CT images were compared using a paired t-test. We also evaluated the influence of table height and distance between X-ray tube and flat panel detector [source-image distance (SID)] on a phantom model. RESULTS Diaphragm height was higher on CT images [mean ± standard deviation (SD), 113.2 ± 27.2 mm] than on angiography images (105.5 ± 27.8 mm; P < 0.001). Inter-rater correlation was excellent both in angiography (R = 0.920; P < 0.001) and CT (R = 0.950; P < 0.001) measurements. Table height and SID had no influence on diaphragm height measurements (P = 0.33). CONCLUSION The diaphragm elevation was observed on CT with arm elevation compared with angiography without arm elevation.
Collapse
|
6
|
Imaging of HCC-Current State of the Art. Diagnostics (Basel) 2015; 5:513-45. [PMID: 26854169 PMCID: PMC4728473 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics5040513] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2015] [Revised: 11/16/2015] [Accepted: 11/19/2015] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is crucial for optimizing treatment outcome. Ongoing advances are being made in imaging of HCC regarding detection, grading, staging, and also treatment monitoring. This review gives an overview of the current international guidelines for diagnosing HCC and their discrepancies as well as critically summarizes the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) techniques for imaging in HCC. The diagnostic performance of MRI with nonspecific and hepatobililiary contrast agents and the role of functional imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging will be discussed. On the other hand, CT as a fast, cheap and easily accessible imaging modality plays a major role in the clinical routine work-up of HCC. Technical advances in CT, such as dual energy CT and volume perfusion CT, are currently being explored for improving detection, characterization and staging of HCC with promising results. Cone beam CT can provide a three-dimensional analysis of the liver with tumor and vessel characterization comparable to cross-sectional imaging so that this technique is gaining an increasing role in the peri-procedural imaging of HCC treated with interventional techniques.
Collapse
|
7
|
Attwa MH, El-Etreby SA. Guide for diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol 2015; 7:1632-1651. [PMID: 26140083 PMCID: PMC4483545 DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i12.1632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 161] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2014] [Revised: 10/31/2014] [Accepted: 05/27/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is ranked as the 5th common type of cancer worldwide and is considered as the 3rd common reason for cancer-related deaths. HCC often occurs on top of a cirrhotic liver. The prognosis is determined by several factors; tumour extension, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) concentration, histologic subtype of the tumour, degree of liver dysfunction, and the patient’s performance status. HCC prognosis is strongly correlated with diagnostic delay. To date, no ideal screening modality has been developed. Analysis of recent studies showed that AFP assessment lacks adequate sensitivity and specificity for effective surveillance and diagnosis. Many tumour markers have been tested in clinical trials without progressing to routine use in clinical practice. Thus, surveillance is still based on ultrasound (US) examination every 6 mo. Imaging studies for diagnosis of HCC can fall into one of two main categories: routine non-invasive studies such as US, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging, and more specialized invasive techniques including CT during hepatic arteriography and CT arterial portography in addition to the conventional hepatic angiography. This article provides an overview and spotlight on the different diagnostic modalities and treatment options of HCC.
Collapse
|