Treatment allocation in hepatocellular carcinoma: Assessment of the BCLC algorithm

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the algorithm most widely used to manage patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate the extent to which the BCLC recommendations effectively guide clinical practice and assess the reasons for any deviation from the recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS The first-line treatments assigned to patients included in the prospective Bern HCC cohort were analyzed. RESULTS Among 223 patients included in the cohort, 116 were not treated according to the BCLC algorithm. Eighty percent of the patients in BCLC stage 0 (very early HCC) and 60% of the patients in BCLC stage A (early HCC) received recommended curative treatment. Only 29% of the BCLC stage B patients (intermediate HCC) and 33% of the BCLC stage C patients (advanced HCC) were treated according to the algorithm. Eighty-nine percent of the BCLC stage D patients (terminal HCC) were treated with best supportive care, as recommended. In 98 patients (44%) the performance status was disregarded in the stage assignment. CONCLUSION The management of HCC in clinical practice frequently deviates from the BCLC recommendations. Most of the curative therapy options, which have well-defined selection criteria, were allocated according to the recommendations, while the majority of the palliative therapy options were assigned to patients with tumor stages not aligned with the recommendations. The only parameter which is subjective in the algorithm, the performance status, is also the least respected.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening With Computed Tomography Using the Arterial Enhancement Fraction With Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of the arterial enhancement fraction (AEF) in multiphasic computed tomography (CT) acquisitions to detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in liver transplant recipients in correlation with the pathologic analysis of the corresponding liver explants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-five transplant recipients were analyzed: 35 patients with 108 histologically proven HCC lesions and 20 patients with end-stage liver disease without HCC. Six radiologists looked at the triphasic CT acquisitions with the AEF maps in a first readout. For the second readout without the AEF maps, 3 radiologists analyzed triphasic CT acquisitions (group 1), whereas the other 3 readers had 4 contrast acquisitions available (group 2). A jackknife free-response reader receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare the readout performance of the readers. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the optimal cutoff value of the AEF. RESULTS The figure of merit (θ = 0.6935) for the conventional triphasic readout was significantly inferior compared with the triphasic readout with additional use of the AEF (θ = 0.7478, P < 0.0001) in group 1. There was no significant difference between the fourphasic conventional readout (θ = 0.7569) and the triphasic readout (θ = 0.7615, P = 0.7541) with the AEF in group 2. Without the AEF, HCC lesions were detected with a sensitivity of 30.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.5%-36.4%) and a specificity of 97.1% (96.0%-98.0%) by group 1 looking at 3 CT acquisition phases and with a sensitivity of 42.1% (36.2%-48.1%) and a specificity of 97.5% (96.4%-98.3%) in group 2 looking at 4 CT acquisition phases. Using the AEF maps, both groups looking at the same 3 acquisition phases, the sensitivity was 47.7% (95% CI, 41.9%-53.5%) with a specificity of 97.4% (96.4%-98.3%) in group 1 and 49.8% (95% CI, 43.9%-55.8%)/97.6% (96.6%-98.4%) in group 2. The optimal cutoff for the AEF was 50%. CONCLUSION The AEF is a helpful tool to screen for HCC with CT. The use of the AEF maps may significantly improve HCC detection, which allows omitting the fourth CT acquisition phase and thus making a 25% reduction of radiation dose possible.