Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Mar;245(3):435-42.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000250420.73854.ad.

Preoperative assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma tumor grade using needle biopsy: implications for transplant eligibility

Affiliations

Preoperative assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma tumor grade using needle biopsy: implications for transplant eligibility

Timothy M Pawlik et al. Ann Surg. 2007 Mar.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
FIGURE 1. Tumor grade was scored using the modified Edmonson and Steiner nuclear grading scheme in which grades 1 and 2 were defined as well-differentiated, grade 3 as moderately differentiated, and grade 4 as poorly differentiated.
None
FIGURE 2. ROC curve analysis displaying the limited ability of NCB to discriminate poor tumor grade on the final surgical specimen (AUC = 0.74).
None
FIGURE 3. Although preoperative NCB tumor grade was not associated with microscopic vascular invasion, tumor grade on the final surgical specimen was significantly associated with the presence of microscopic vascular. *P = 0.001.
None
FIGURE 4. Tumor grade in HCC can be heterogeneous. A, A portion of tumor is well-differentiated while an adjacent area, which contains markedly enlarged oncocytic hepatocytes with some nuclear pleomorphism and angulation, is moderately differentiated. B, In this example, an area of moderate differentiation is adjacent to an area of poor differentiation.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Iwatsuki S, Gordon RD, Shaw BW Jr, et al. Role of liver transplantation in cancer therapy. Ann Surg. 1985;202:401–407. - PMC - PubMed
    1. O'Grady JG, Polson RJ, Rolles K, et al. Liver transplantation for malignant disease: results in 93 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 1988;207:373–379. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ismail T, Angrisani L, Gunson BK, et al. Primary hepatic malignancy: the role of liver transplantation. Br J Surg. 1990;77:983–987. - PubMed
    1. Olthoff KM, Millis JM, Rosove MH, et al. Is liver transplantation justified for the treatment of hepatic malignancies? Arch Surg. 1990;125:1261–1266; discussion 1266–1268. - PubMed
    1. Llovet JM, Bruix J, Fuster J, et al. Liver transplantation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: the tumor-node-metastasis classification does not have prognostic power. Hepatology. 1998;27:1572–1577. - PubMed