Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (HCC-CC) is a rare primary liver cancer. It is constituted by neoplastic cells of both hepatocellular and cholangiocellular derivation. Different histology types of HCC-CC have been reported, hinting at heterogeneous carcinogenic pathways leading to the development of this cancer. Due to its rarity and complexity, mixed HCC-CC is a scantly investigated condition with unmet needs and unsatisfactory outcomes. Surgery remains the preferred treatment in resectable patients. The risk of recurrence, however, is high, especially in comparison with other primary liver cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma. In unresectable or recurring patients, the therapeutic options are challenging due to the dual nature of the neoplastic cells. Consequently, the odds of survival of patients with HCC-CC remains poor. We analysed the literature systematically about the treatment of mixed HCC-CC, reviewing the main therapeutic options and their outcomes and analysing the most interesting developments in this topic with a focus on new potential therapeutic avenues.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic classifications for patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. Recently, 3 different prognostic models (hepatoma arterial-embolization prognosis [HAP] score, sorafenib advanced HCC prognosis [SAP] score, and Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC [PROSASH]-II) have been proposed specifically for patients treated with sorafenib. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of different scores. METHODS: We analyzed a large prospective database gathering data of 552 patients treated with sorafenib from 7 Italian centers. The performance of the HAP, SAP, and PROSASH–II models were compared with those of generic HCC prognostic models (including the Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer and Italian Liver Cancer staging systems, albumin–bilirubin grade, and Child-Pugh score) to verify whether they could provide additional information. RESULTS: The PROSASH-II model improved discrimination (C-index 0.62) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). Its stratification significantly discriminated patients, with a median overall survival of 21.5, 15.3, 9.3, and 6.0 months for risk group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The HAP and SAP score were also validated but with a poorer performance compared with the PROSASH-II. DISCUSSION: Although suboptimal, PROSASH-II is the most effective prognostic classification model among other available scores in a large Italian population of patients treated with sorafenib.

Screening strategies to detect celiac disease (CD) in at-risk subjects are of paramount importance to prevent the possible long-term complications of this condition. It is therefore of strategic relevance to understand whether patients diagnosed through screening follow a strict gluten-free diet (GFD), as the non-compliance to this diet can make screening efforts pointless. Currently, no studies have verified whether CD patients diagnosed in their adulthood are adhering to the GFD years after the diagnosis. We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 750 CD patients diagnosed in our center during January 2004–December 2013 to verify differences between screening detected and clinically diagnosed patients. The groups shared a similar adherence to the GFD (91.2 versus 89.8%, p = 0.857). Moreover, the rates of non-responsive CD, GFD-induced metabolic alterations, and persistence in controls were also similar. Instead, screening-detected patients had a significantly lower rate of osteopenia/osteoporosis at diagnosis (31.3 versus 46%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, screening strategies for CD in at-risk groups should be encouraged even in the adult population. Patients diagnosed through these strategies had no additional problems compared to those diagnosed for clinical suspicion and might benefit from a protective effect against metabolic bone disease.

Multiple focal liver lesions were incidentally detected in a patient screened by ultrasound for a recent diagnosis of lower limb deep vein thrombosis, for which anticoagulation had been initiated. Past medical history reported a post-traumatic splenectomy 15 years before. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) showed a subcapsular lesion in liver segment 5 consistent with focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and multiple other nodules, with a different pattern from the former, judged as probable hepatic adenomas by MRI but probable hemangiomas by CEUS (hyperenhancement in the late phase). Therefore, another MRI with gadoxetic acid was performed. The diagnosis of FNH was confirmed. The other lesions showed an hyperenhancing pattern in the arterial phase with progressive wash-out in the portal and late phase and marked hypointensity in the hepatobiliary phase. This pattern apparently confirmed the hypothesis of adenomas, with a potential risk of malignancy due to the hepatobiliary phase pattern and the recent occurrence of deep vein thrombosis. Due to the inherent risk of spontaneous bleeding from subcapsular adenomas increased by the ongoing anticoagulant therapy and the recommendation of international guidelines to resect adenomas in male subjects, the patient was directly offered surgery. Pathology of the resected specimens confirmed one FNH but demonstrated intrahepatic splenosis for all other lesions. This case suggests that in the setting of previous splenic trauma any discrepancy between MRI and CEUS findings should lead one to consider also the hypothesis of intrahepatic splenosis.