recruited 594 participants as controls from the Mayo Clinic Biobank to compare to 612 patients with ICC. The case-control study, which is, in a way, analogous to the prospective cohort study, has selleck compound been used for over 60 years to examine the association between disease and potential risk factors, but this method has some limitations, one of
which is susceptibility to selection bias. Case-control sampling is carried out in the context of an actual cohort study, but sampling fractions for controls are much smaller than those for cases as noted in the study by Chaiteerakij et al. In such situations, selection bias does occur if exposed controls are more or less likely to be sampled than nonexposed controls. For instance, if the frequency of sampled exposed persons as controls was twice the frequency as nonexposed persons, the estimated odds ratio would be twice the correct value.[2] In Table 1 of the article,[1] the incidence of hyperlipidemia
in controls is 43.1%, which appears to be higher than that in the U.S. general population,[3] suggesting that the protective effect of hyperlipidemia was overestimated. There are some concerns with regard to the analysis of the relationship between metformin use and risk of ICC. To eliminate such concerns, further analysis would be warranted. Tetsuji Fujita, M.D. “
“We read the interesting article by Vilana et al.,1 who reported that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) arising in the cirrhotic liver may display on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) a vascular pattern indistinguishable from that of hepatocellular Romidepsin in vitro carcinoma (HCC). Such a typical dynamic imaging pattern after intravenous contrast administration (i.e., intense arterial uptake followed by washout in venous phases) was found
in 3 of 4 ICC nodules smaller than 2 cm and in 7 of 17 ICC nodules larger than 2 cm. According to the noninvasive diagnostic guidelines proposed by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD),2 these larger nodules would have been misdiagnosed as HCC (i.e., false-positive results) because only small nodules require a second contrast-enhanced imaging Parvulin technique for confirmation of the diagnosis. In their series, the lack of concordance with magnetic resonance imaging suggested an opportunity for nodule biopsy, which resulted in a proper ICC diagnosis. However, they did not mention how large the cohort was from which these 21 patients were extracted. Therefore, we wonder how many other patients might have received a false-positive diagnosis of HCC because the criteria that the authors applied did not consider that a nodule arising in a patient with liver cirrhosis could be something other than HCC. Indeed, for the diagnosis of small HCC by two imaging techniques, such guidelines seem to be affected by low sensitivity (33%), as recently reported by the same authors.3 We are also especially concerned about the decision to biopsy only the largest nodule when multiple lesions were present.