Computed Tomography Features and Clinical Prognostic Characteristics of Hepatoid Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach

PURPOSE: Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach (HAS) is a highly malignant and aggressive tumor. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical, computed tomography (CT), and prognostic features of HAS to increase the awareness of this entity and determine its distinguishing features from non-HAS tumors. METHODS: The CT features and clinical data of 47 patients in our hospital with pathologically documented HAS were retrospectively analyzed, and the relevant differences between pure HAS (pHAS) and mixed HAS (mHAS) were determined. In addition, 141 patients with non-HAS tumors in the same T stage in the same period were selected as the control group. The data were compared between the two groups, and factors affecting the prognosis of HAS were analyzed. In addition, we included 9 patients with HAS and 27 patients with non-HAS tumors from another center for external validation. RESULTS: The patients in the HAS group were predominantly men (n = 33), and the tumor location was mostly the cardia or fundus (n = 27). Between the HAS and non-HAS groups, there were observed differences in terms of: sex, serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), carbohydrate antigen (CA)-125, and CA-724 levels; longest tumor diameter; degree of differentiation; vascular invasion; N stage, M stage, and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage; thickest tumor diameter; plain CT attenuation; arterial-phase CT attenuation; CT attenuation between the venous and arterial phases; enhancement modes; and degrees of enhancement (all P < 0.05). In the data from another center for external validation, there were observed differences in terms of: age, degree of differentiation, vascular invasion, thickest tumor diameter, the ratio of arterial CT attenuation to CT attenuation of the abdominal aorta at the same level (R(A)), CT attenuation difference between the venous phase and arterial phase (HUv-a) (all P < 0.05). The results of the multivariate analysis revealed that the independent factors for differentiation were serum AFP level (P = 0.001), M stage (P = 0.038), and tumor enhancement on CT (P = 0.014). Among patients in the HAS group, 72.34% had pHAS and 27.66% had mHAS. The thickest tumor diameter and the longest short diameter of the metastatic lymph nodes of the mHAS group were on average 6.39 cm and 1.45 cm, respectively, which were larger than those in the pHAS group. The median progression-free survival time was 18.25 months in the HAS group, which was shorter than that in the non-HAS group (72.96 months; P = 0.001). The median overall survival time in the HAS group was 24.80 months, which was shorter than that in the non-HAS group (67.96 months; P = 0.001). The factors affecting the prognosis of HAS were M stage (P = 0.001), overall TNM stage (P = 0.048), presence of vascular cancer emboli (P = 0.040), and pHAS type (P = 0.046). Multifactorial analysis revealed that M stage (P = 0.027) and pHAS type (P = 0.009) were independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of HAS. CONCLUSION: Although HAS is a rare clinical entity, it should be considered in the differential diagnosis of gastric tumors. Patients with HAS often have advanced-stage disease at presentation and a worse prognosis than patients with non-HAS tumors. CT findings, combined with laboratory results, can support the diagnosis of HAS. However, the final diagnosis needs to be confirmed with a histopathologic examination. If the postoperative pathologic findings reveal the mHAS type, a rapid clinical intervention and a detailed follow-up with CT are essential.