Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Without Preoperative Tumor Biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the need for a preoperative tumor biopsy of liver lesions suspicious for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: With advances in liver imaging, the results of recent studies have suggested a very high accuracy of preoperative evaluation of liver masses suspicious of HCC, making preoperative tumor biopsy unnecessary. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all liver resections for HCC at the Toronto General and Mt. Sinai Hospitals, Toronto, between October 1994 and December 1998. RESULTS: Sixty patients underwent 65 liver resections without a preoperative liver biopsy. The median age was 61 years. Sixty percent of the patients had cirrhosis and 38.5% had noncirrhotic chronic hepatitis. HCC was confirmed histologically in the surgical specimen in 63 of the 65 cases (96.9%). Both patients without HCC had a significant risk factor for HCC (chronic hepatitis C and alcohol in one and chronic hepatitis B and previous resection for HCC in the other). The lesions were 2 cm and 2.7 cm in diameter, and the alpha-fetoprotein level was low (<5 and 22 ng/mL, respectively). In such patients, with tumor 3 cm or smaller and an alpha-fetoprotein level less than 100 ng/mL (10 patients), the false-positive rate for the preoperative diagnosis was 2/10 (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnosis of HCC was highly accurate in lesions larger than 3 cm. Tumor biopsy is unnecessary in these patients. However, in a subgroup of patients with lesions less than 3 cm, particularly those with alpha-fetoprotein levels less than 100 ng/mL, there is a higher false-positive diagnostic rate, and tumor biopsy should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".