4.4 Review

Surveillance and Diagnostic Algorithm for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Proposed by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan: 2014 Update

Journal

ONCOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue -, Pages 7-21

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000368141

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Clinical practice guideline; Surveillance and diagnostic algorithm; Japan Society of Hepatology; Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Surveillance and diagnostic algorithms for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have already been described in guidelines published by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the European Association for the Study of the Liver and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EASL-EORTC), and the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH), but the content of these algorithms differs slightly. The JSH algorithm mainly differs from the other two algorithms in that it is highly sophisticated and considers the functional imaging techniques of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) and Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to be very important diagnostic modalities. In contrast, the AASLD and EASL-EORTC algorithms are less advanced and suggest that a diagnosis be made based solely on hemodynamic findings using dynamic CT/MRI and biopsy findings. A consensus meeting regarding the JSH surveillance and diagnostic algorithm was held at the 50th Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan Congress, and a 2014 update of the algorithm was completed. The new algorithm reaffirms the very important role of EOB-MRI and Sonazoid CEUS in the surveillance and diagnosis of liver cancer and is more sophisticated than those currently used in the United States and Europe. This is now an optimized algorithm that can be used to diagnose early-stage to classical HCC easily and highly accurately. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available