Reply to “Does multiple intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma worsen prognosis as “M1” stage?”; multiple primaries vs liver metastases

It has been a long time since tumor ablation was first tested in patients with liver cancer, especially hepatocellular carcinoma. Since than it has become a first line treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the years, the indications of thermal ablation have expanded to colorectal cancer liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as well. Together with the new indication for ablation, new ablation devices have been developed as well. Among them microwave ablation shows potential in replacing radiofrequency ablation as the preferred method of thermal ablation in liver cancer. The debate whether radiofrequency or microwave ablation should be the preferred method of treatment in patients with liver cancer remains open. The main purpose of this review is to offer some answers to the question: Microwave ablation in liver tumors: a better tool or simply more power? Various clinical scenarios will be analyzed including small, medium, and intermediate size hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal cancer liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Furthermore, the advantages, limitations, and technical considerations of MWA treatment will be provided also.

Download Full-text

Major hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or colorectal liver metastases. Are we talking about the same story?

European Journal of Surgical Oncology ◽

10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.033 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 45 (12) ◽

pp. 2353-2359

Author(s):

Alexandre Doussot ◽

David Fuks ◽

Jean-Marc Regimbeau ◽

Olivier Farges ◽

Antonio Sa-Cunha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Liver Metastases ◽

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma ◽

Colorectal Liver Metastases ◽

Major Hepatectomy

Download Full-text

527P Phase I study of the novel prodrug MIV-818 in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) or liver metastases (LM)

Annals of Oncology ◽

10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.1049 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 32 ◽

pp. S594

Author(s):

D. Sarker ◽

T.R.J. Evans ◽

E. Van Cutsem ◽

H. Prenen ◽

M.R. Middleton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Phase I ◽

Liver Metastases ◽

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma ◽

Phase I Study ◽

The Novel

Download Full-text

Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values for the differentiation of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma liver metastases

Radiology and Oncology ◽

10.2478/raon-2021-0052 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 0 (0) ◽

Author(s):

Temel Fatih Yilmaz ◽

Mehmet Ali Gultekin ◽

Hacı Mehmet Turk ◽

Mehmet Besiroglu ◽

Dilek Hacer Cesme ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diffusion Coefficient ◽

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽

Liver Metastases ◽

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Gastrointestinal System ◽

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values ◽

Study Results ◽

Apparent Diffusion ◽

Adc Values

Abstract Background We aimed to investigate whether there is a difference between intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) and liver metastases of gastrointestinal system (GIS) adenocarcinoma in terms of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Patients and methods From January 2018 to January 2020, we retrospectively examined 64 consecutive patients with liver metastases due to gastrointestinal system adenocarcinomas and 13 consecutive IHCC in our hospital’s medical records. After exclusions, fifty-three patients with 53 liver metastases and 10 IHCC were included in our study. We divided the patients into two groups as IHCC and liver metastases of GIS adenocarcinoma. For mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean) values, the region of interests (ROI) was placed in solid portions of the lesions. ADCmean values of groups were compared. Results The mean age of IHCC group was 62.50 ± 13.49 and mean age of metastases group was 61.15 ± 9.18. ADCmean values were significantly higher in the IHCC group compared to the metastatic group (p < 0.001). ROC curves method showed high diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.879) with cut-off value of < 1178 x 10-6 mm2/s for ADCmean (Sensitivity = 90.57, Specificity = 70.0, positive predictive value [PPV] = 94.1, negative predictive value [NPV] = 58.3) in differentiating adenocarcinoma metastases from IHCC. Conclusions The present study results suggest that ADC values have a potential role for differentiation between IHCC and GIS adenocarcinoma liver metastases which may be valuable for patient management.

Download Full-text