Radiological estimation of size in colorectal liver metastases: is it reliable? Comparison with post-resectional measurements

Abstract

Since the efficiency of percutaneous ablation techniques in treating colorectal liver metastases is dependent on tumor size, the aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of computed tomography or magnetic resonance in estimating the maximum diameter of colorectal liver metastases by comparing these findings with those of pathology in a series of patients who underwent liver resection. Radiological and pathological tumor measurements in 39 patients operated for 69 colorectal liver metastasis were recorded. The radiological measurement was performed by magnetic resonance in 40 tumors (23 cases) and by computed tomography in 29 tumors (16 patients). The mean difference between pathological and radiological sizes was 0.4 cm (p < 0.001). Radiological size was smaller than pathological size in 60.9% of tumors, equal in 16% and bigger in 23% of tumors. The results indicated that radiology significantly underestimates the diameter of liver metastasis. To avoid on-site recurrence after percutaneous ablation therapies due to inaccurate radiological measurement, a radiological size of colorectal metastasis up to 2.5 cm should be considered as selection criteria for this treatment.

Salvage living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after hepatectomy: Quantitative prediction using ADV score

“…This tumor assessment is compatible with the definitions of mRECIST. 15 It has been reported that there exists a reliable correlation between the results of pretransplant imaging and explant/resection pathology regarding the size of viable tumors, [28][29][30] as shown in the present study. In patients who had undergone TACE before LT, the TV can be estimated through volumetric measurement of the contrast-enhancing portions of tumors and lipidolized zones were considered non-enhancing lesions as adopted in the mRECIST criteria, 30 which can offset the different therapeutic effects of preceding HCC treatments.…”

Correlation between the Size of the Solid Component on Thin-Section CT and the Invasive Component on Pathology in Small Lung Adenocarcinomas Manifesting as Ground-Glass Nodules

“…10 The comparison of radiologic-pathologic tumor measurements conducted in several other cancers has demonstrated that radiologic measurement significantly corresponded with pathologic tumor size and may be valuable in treatment planning. [24][25][26][27][28][29] To our knowledge, however, no previous study has provided and directly correlated the measurement data between the solid component of subsolid nodules on thin-section CT and the invasive component on pathologic exams. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the correlation between the size of the solid component on thinsection CT and the invasive component on pathology in small lung adenocarcinomas and preinvasive lesions manifesting as subsolid nodules.…”

Validation of quantitative prognostic prediction using ADV score for resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: A Korea–Japan collaborative study with 9200 patients

“…TV in HCC patients who had undergone TACE before HR can be estimated by measuring the volumes of the contrast‐enhancing portions of tumors, with lipidolized zones considered non‐enhancing lesions according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria, 9 offsetting the therapeutic effects of locoregional treatments. Reliably high correlations in the sizes of viable tumors were observed between preoperative imaging results and explant/resection pathology 10–12 . Our previous study with 843 liver transplant recipients revealed that comparison of the preoperative imaging and postoperative pathology findings showed high correlation regarding viable tumor numbers ( ρ = .845, p < .001), maximal tumor size ( ρ = .688, p < .001), total TV ( ρ = .736, p < .001), and ADV score ( ρ = .895, p < .001) 7 .…”

“…Reliably high correlations in the sizes of viable tumors were observed between preoperative imaging results and explant/ resection pathology. [10][11][12] Our previous study with 843 liver transplant recipients revealed that comparison of the preoperative and postoperative pathology findings showed high correlation regarding viable tumor numbers (ρ = .845, p < .001), maximal tumor size (ρ = .688, p < .001), total TV (ρ = .736, p < .001), and ADV score (ρ = .895, p < .001). 7 Therefore, preoperative ADV scores based on imaging analyses and postoperative ADV scores based on pathologic findings are comparable, with both resulting in similar prognostic outcomes.…”