2005 PRETEXT: a revised staging system for primary malignant liver tumours of childhood developed by the SIOPEL group
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Roebuck, D.J., Aronson, D., Clapuyt, P. et al. Pediatr Radiol (2007) 37: 123. doi:10.1007/s00247-006-0361-5
- 1.9k Downloads
Over the last 15 years, various oncology groups throughout the world have used the PRETEXT system for staging malignant primary liver tumours of childhood. This paper, written by members of the radiology and surgery committees of the International Childhood Liver Tumor Strategy Group (SIOPEL), presents various clarifications and revisions to the original PRETEXT system.
The PRETEXT system was designed by the International Childhood Liver Tumor Strategy Group (SIOPEL) for staging and risk stratification of liver tumours [1, 2]. PRETEXT is used to describe tumour extent before any therapy, thus allowing more effective comparison between studies conducted by different groups. The system has good interobserver reproducibility  and good prognostic value in children with hepatoblastoma [2–5], and is the basis of risk stratification in current SIOPEL hepatoblastoma studies. Most other study groups now use the PRETEXT system to describe imaging findings at diagnosis, even if this is not their main staging system.
Certain limitations of the system have become obvious over the last 15 years. In addition, there have been significant advances in imaging during this period . This paper is the report of a working party that met in June 2005 to update the PRETEXT system.
Definitions of PRETEXT number (see text for PRETEXT number of tumours involving the caudate lobe)
One section is involved and three adjoining sections are free
One or two sections are involved, but two adjoining sections are free
Two or three sections are involved, and no two adjoining sections are free
All four sections are involved
In addition to describing the intrahepatic extent of the primary tumour(s), the PRETEXT system includes certain other criteria. These assess involvement of the inferior vena cava (IVC) or hepatic veins (designated V), involvement of the portal veins (P), extrahepatic abdominal disease (E) and distant metastases (M).
2005 PRETEXT staging: additional criteria
Caudate lobe involvement
Tumour involving the caudate lobe
All C1 patients are at least PRETEXT II
All other patients
Extrahepatic abdominal disease
No evidence of tumour spread in the abdomen (except M or N)
Add suffix “a” if ascites is present, e.g., E0a
Direct extension of tumour into adjacent organs or diaphragm
Patient with solitary tumour
Patient with two or more discrete tumours
Tumour rupture or intraperitoneal haemorrhage
Imaging and clinical findings of intraperitoneal haemorrhage
All other patients
Add suffix or suffixes to indicate location (see text)
Any metastasis (except E and N)
Lymph node metastases
No nodal metastases
Abdominal lymph node metastases only
Extra-abdominal lymph node metastases (with or without abdominal lymph node metastases)
Portal vein involvement
No involvement of the portal vein or its left or right branches
See text for definition of involvement. Add suffix “a” if intravascular tumour is present, e.g., P1a
Involvement of either the left or the right branch of the portal vein
Involvement of the main portal vein
Involvement of the IVC and/or hepatic veins
No involvement of the hepatic veins or inferior vena cava (IVC)
See text for definition of involvement. Add suffix “a” if intravascular tumour is present, e.g., V3a
Involvement of one hepatic vein but not the IVC
Involvement of two hepatic veins but not the IVC
Involvement of all three hepatic veins and/or the IVC
Risk stratification in hepatoblastoma for current SIOPEL studies
Patients with any of the following:
Serum alpha-fetoprotein <100 μg/l
All other patients
Additional PRETEXT criteria:
E1, E1a, E2, E2a
M1 (any site)
The traditional approach to radiological segmentation of the liver, based on the paths of the hepatic veins, is an oversimplification. This is partly due to the variability of hepatic venous anatomy [8–10]. The main problem, however, is the imperfect correlation with segments defined by the branching pattern of the portal veins [8, 11–13]. Although the plane of the right hepatic vein reliably separates the right posterior and anterior sections , the left hepatic vein runs to the left of the boundary between the left lateral and medial sections, which is best defined by the plane of the fissure of the ligamentum teres and the umbilical portion of the left portal vein (Fig. 1) .
Multifocal PRETEXT III tumours may also spare the right anterior or left medial sections, or two non-contiguous sections. These patterns are rare.
C: caudate lobe tumours
The caudate lobe and caudate process (segment 1 or segments 1 and 9, depending on the system of nomenclature) can be resected with either the left or right lobe of the liver . For this reason, segment 1 was not considered in the PRETEXT classification in the original system . Modern surgical techniques have made resection of segment 1 safer, but these operations remain difficult. Involvement of the caudate lobe is, therefore, a potential predictor of poor outcome. If any tumour is present in segment 1 on imaging at diagnosis (Fig. 3g), the patient will be coded as C1, irrespective of the PRETEXT group (see above). All other patients should be coded as C0.
E: extrahepatic abdominal disease
The assessment of extrahepatic abdominal disease was one of the most confusing aspects of the original PRETEXT system, and clearly needed revision. Originally, there was a requirement for all extrahepatic abdominal spread of tumour (E+) to be proved by biopsy. Modern imaging techniques are capable, in principle, of identifying extrahepatic abdominal tumour extension in many forms. The frequency and significance of these imaging findings is different for different tumour types, and not all patterns are easily biopsied.
Pedunculated tumours are considered to be confined to the sections from which they arise, and are not extrahepatic disease.
Peritoneal tumour seeding was originally not included in this category . It probably indicates more advanced abdominal disease than direct extension of the primary tumour. Imaging techniques, especially ultrasonography, can often show even small peritoneal nodules clearly, and the differential diagnosis is very limited. In the 2005 revision, peritoneal nodules will be assumed to be metastases, and will be coded as E2. All other patients should be coded as E0.
Ascites is an unusual finding at presentation in hepatoblastoma, but is more common in hepatocellular carcinoma, where it may be an independent predictor of poor prognosis. For this reason, patients with ascites will be coded as E0a, E1a or E2a as appropriate.
Abdominal lymph node metastases, which were previously recorded as E+, are now coded as N (see below).
F: tumour focality
In SIOPEL 1, multifocal tumours were identified at the time of diagnosis in 18% of the patients with hepatoblastoma where this information was available . Univariate analysis showed that the 5-year event-free survival was significantly worse for patients with multifocal tumour (40%) than for those with unifocal tumour (72%) . The independent significance of this finding is unclear, as there is clearly an association between multifocality and advanced PRETEXT number. The German Society of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology reported slightly different results . In its HB89 study, 21% of patients had multiple well-defined tumours, and these children had a similar disease-free survival (DFS; 87%) to those with a single tumour (86%). However, in 20% of children the tumour exhibited a diffuse growth pattern (Fig. 5), and these had a significantly worse DFS (21%) . Unfortunately, a diffuse growth pattern is difficult to define, and despite the promise that this finding shows as a potential risk factor, it was decided not to incorporate it in the 2005 PRETEXT revision.
H: tumour rupture or intraperitoneal haemorrhage
It is not uncommon for hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular carcinoma to present with tumour rupture [17, 18]. Originally, these patients were not automatically included as high risk in SIOPEL studies, because of the requirement that extrahepatic disease (E) be proved by biopsy. Although the data to prove this are not currently available, it seems intuitively likely that tumour rupture (usually manifesting as intraperitoneal haemorrhage) is a risk factor, and these patients should be coded as H1. Laparotomy or aspiration of peritoneal blood is not necessary for diagnostic purposes if characteristic imaging and clinical findings (such as hypotension and low haematocrit or haemoglobin level) are present. The presence of peritoneal fluid on imaging alone does not imply tumour rupture (but see E above).
Since the opening of the SIOPEL 4 study in September 2004, tumour rupture has become a defining feature of high-risk hepatoblastoma in SIOPEL studies. Patients with no evidence of tumour rupture or haemorrhage, and those with only subcapsular or biopsy-related intraperitoneal bleeding, are coded as H0.
M: distant metastases
Patients with distant metastases at diagnosis are coded as M1. In hepatoblastoma, these metastases are predominantly found in the lungs. Although the best imaging modality for the identification of lung metastases is currently CT, the defining characteristics of lung metastases in this context have not been specifically studied. It is believed, however, that factors favouring a diagnosis of metastasis include multiple lesions, a rounded, well-defined contour and a subpleural location. In most parts of the world, a single rounded lung lesion with a diameter of >5 mm in a child with a primary liver tumour is very likely to be a metastasis. Patients with these findings on chest CT scans should be classified as M1. Biopsy is not required for staging purposes, because it is uncommon for other lesions to mimic metastases in this clinical context. The protocols of the SIOPEL studies recommend central radiological review if there is any doubt about the presence of lung metastases.
Other metastases are infrequently found at diagnosis in hepatoblastoma, but are more common in hepatocellular carcinoma. The imaging findings of brain metastases are usually characteristic, and biopsy is not required.
Bone scintigraphy is recommended for staging in children with hepatocellular carcinoma, but not hepatoblastoma. Abnormal calcium metabolism is common in children with hepatoblastoma, and may cause abnormal uptake on bone scintigraphy, especially in the ribs , whereas bone metastases are rare . Biopsy proof is therefore mandatory for suspected bone metastases in hepatoblastoma, unless the findings of cross-sectional imaging are characteristic and the patient is already in the high-risk category for some other reason, such as the presence of lung metastases.
Bone marrow biopsy is not recommended in children with hepatoblastoma, because bone marrow spread is rare . It is not known whether metastases at different sites have different prognostic implications. For statistical purposes, it is therefore recommended that one or more suffixes be added to M1 to indicate the major sites of metastasis: pulmonary (p), skeletal (s), central nervous system (c), bone marrow (m), and other sites (x). A child with lung, brain, and adrenal metastases would therefore be coded as M1cpx. Patients with no evidence of haematogenous metastatic spread of tumour should be coded as M0.
N: lymph node metastases
Because porta hepatis (and other abdominal) lymph node metastases are quite unusual in hepatoblastoma, SIOPEL trials have always required this form of tumour spread to be proved by biopsy. In fact, benign enlargement of lymph nodes is probably not uncommon, and the accuracy of positron emission tomography is not known in this context. Because biopsy of equivocal lymph nodes inevitably carries some risk, the SIOPEL committee actively discourages this. Biopsy may, however, be required if there is significant nodal enlargement (for example short axis >15 mm) in a child with no other criteria for high-risk hepatoblastoma.
Lymph node metastases are quite common in hepatocellular carcinoma and fibrolamellar carcinoma, and biopsy proof is not required if the imaging abnormality is unequivocal. An arbitrary threshold short axis diameter of 15 mm is suggested for this purpose.
Children with no lymph node metastases by these criteria are coded as N0, those with nodal metastases limited to the abdomen (i.e. caudal to the diaphragm and cranial to the inguinal ligament) as N1, and those with extra-abdominal nodal metastases as N2.
P: portal vein involvement
Involvement of the main portal vein and/or both major branches has been considered a risk factor in hepatoblastoma, because this has obvious implications for the resectability of the tumour. It is also possible that portal vein invasion detected by imaging is an independent risk factor for tumour recurrence . The original PRETEXT criteria, however, did not specifically define the word “involvement”.
Patients with no imaging evidence of involvement of the main portal vein, its bifurcation, or either of its main branches will be coded as P0. Those who fulfil the original PRETEXT definition of P+ (involvement of the main portal vein, its bifurcation, or both of its main branches), as well as those with “cavernous transformation” of the portal vein will be coded as P2. P2, however, represents very advanced disease. For this reason, the category P1 has been created for patients with evidence of involvement of one major branch of the portal vein. In addition, the detection of portal vein invasion should be marked by the suffix “a” (e.g., P2a).
V: involvement of the IVC and/or hepatic veins
The same definitions of involvement (venous obstruction, encasement and/or invasion) used for the portal veins apply to the hepatic veins (Fig. 7). A hepatic vein can be assumed to be involved if it cannot be identified at all, and its expected course runs through a large tumour mass. It is important to look carefully for the hepatic veins, preferably with ultrasonography as well as CT and/or MRI, as they may be displaced from their expected position by the tumour. Complete obstruction of the IVC can occur with mass effect alone, without any tumour extension to the vein itself. Inability to visualize the IVC, and the presence of an enlarged azygos vein, are not, therefore, sufficient criteria for involvement. Patients with no imaging evidence of involvement of the hepatic veins or IVC will be coded as V0.
As for the portal vein, the original classification of involvement (V+) indicated a very advanced level of disease. Intermediate categories have therefore been created. V1 and V2 indicate involvement of one or two main hepatic veins respectively. V3 indicates involvement of either the IVC or all three of the hepatic veins. In addition, the detection of hepatic vein or IVC invasion should be marked by the suffix “a” (e.g., V2a). The presence of tumour in the right atrium automatically makes a patient V3a.
SIOPEL risk stratification for patients with hepatoblastoma
The SIOPEL risk stratification for children with hepatoblastoma is essentially unchanged by this revision. Patients with any one or more of certain criteria (Table 3) are high risk. All other SIOPEL patients are standard risk.
Although the timing of surgery will depend on the treatment protocol and the patient’s response to therapy, preoperative reimaging is almost always necessary. All of the PRETEXT categories should be reassessed after preoperative chemotherapy, as near as possible to the time of surgery, and recorded as POSTEXT (post-treatment extent of disease). Comparison of surgical findings with POSTEXT will allow prospective assessment of the accuracy of imaging techniques.
We would like to thank the many radiologists from all over the world who have referred images (some of which have been used in this paper) for a second opinion. PRETEXT staging is heavily dependent on accurate interpretation of high-quality imaging studies. In case of doubt, rapid radiology review is available for patients who may be eligible for SIOPEL studies (see http://www.siopel.org).