Hepatoid adenocarcinoma (HAC) is a rare but important special type of extrahepatic adenocarcinoma with clinicopathological presentation mimicking hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and prompt and correct diagnosis can be a challenge, especially in endemic areas with a high incidence of HCC. To date, HAC has only been reported in case series or single case reports, so we aimed to review the clinicopathological characteristics of HAC to obtain a more complete picture of this rare form of extrahepatic adenocarcinoma. All the articles about HAC published from 2001 to 2011 were reviewed, and clinicopathological findings were extracted for analysis. A late middle-aged male with high serum α-fetoprotein and atypical image finding of HCC should raise the suspicion of HAC, and characteristic pathological immunohistochemical stains can help with the differential diagnosis. Novel immunohistochemical markers may be useful to clearly differentiate HAC from HCC. Once metastatic HAC is diagnosed, the primary tumor origin should be identified for adequate treatment. The majority of HAC originates from the stomach, so panendoscopy should be arranged first.

No significant benefit of the application of the Tokyo guidelines in the management of patients was found between the two subgroups except for reduced mean length of hospital stay. The application of the Tokyo guidelines for improving the outcomes of patients with acute cholecystitis needs further investigation and evaluation.

This study provides evidence that early recurrent hemorrhage after initial EV bleeding in cirrhotic patients is significantly associated with higher incidence of bacterial infection and more numbers of EV ligations due to extensive surface area of mucosal injury and post-banding ulcers. Prevention of rebleeding and infection plays a major role in reducing the rate of mortality in cirrhotic patients with EV bleeding.

Aim: Currently, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab is the standard first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but lenvatinib or sorafenib are still recommended for these patients for some reasons. The aim of the study was to determine the outcomes of Taiwanese patients with advanced-stage HCC who received lenvatinib or sorafenib. Methods: Data on patients with BCLC stage C HCC who were receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib as the first-line therapy from May 2018 to August 2020 was collected. The individuals with lenvatinib and sorafenib were propensity score-matched at a ratio of 1:2. Results: A total of 22 patients with lenvatinib and 44 patients with sorafenib were enrolled. The ORR (36.4% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.023) and DCR (81.9% vs. 56.9%, p = 0.039) were both higher in the lenvatinib group compared with the sorafenib group. The median overall survival (OS) of the lenvatinib group and the sorafenib group was 9.36 months and 8.36 months, respectively. The best median OS was detected in patients receiving lenvatinib and having an objective tumor response (11.29 months), with a significant difference (p = 0.031) compared with the other groups. Conclusion: Lenvatinib, compared to sorafenib, had better ORR and DCR, but similar OS, in Taiwanese patients with advanced-stage HCC. The patients with an objective tumor response had a better OS.