From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (S.H.C., S.S.L., S.Y.K., So Hyun Park, Seong Ho Park, M.G.L.); Department of Internal Medicine (K.M.K.), and Department of Diagnostic Pathology (S.M.H., E.Y.), University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea.
Radiology. 2017 Mar;282(3):771-781. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016160639. Epub 2016 Oct 31.
Purpose To determine the imaging features at gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) in a cirrhotic liver, with an emphasis on the distinction between IHCC and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and on the comparison of nodule enhancement patterns between MR imaging and computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR and CT images in 72 consecutive patients (61 men; mean age, 56.6 years) with 78 IHCCs and one-to-one matched control patients (56 men; mean age, 56.6 years) with 77 HCCs were evaluated retrospectively by two independent readers. Findings that could differentiate IHCC from HCC were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analyses. Using the enhancement criteria and the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System with modifications (mLI-RADS), the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing HCC were calculated with conventional washout and portal venous phase (PVP) washout. Results At MR imaging with conventional washout, the specificities for diagnosing HCC were 94.9% (74 of 78) with the enhancement criteria and 96.2% (75 of 78) with mLI-RADS, while the use of PVP washout achieved 100% (78 of 78) specificity for diagnosing HCC with both diagnostic criteria at the expense of decreased sensitivity (from 76.6% [59 of 77] to 63.6% [49 of 77] with the enhancement criteria and from 64.9% [50 of 77] to 55.8% [43 of 77] with mLI-RADS, P ≤ .016). At CT, the sensitivities and specificities with conventional washout were 72.7% (56 of 77) and 97.4% (76 of 78), respectively, with the enhancement criteria and 67.5% (52 of 77) and 97.4% (76 of 78), respectively, with mLI-RADS. Conclusion The use of PVP washout instead of conventional washout at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging prevents the misclassification of IHCC as HCC in a cirrhotic liver but leads to a decreased sensitivity for HCC. RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
在肝硬化肝脏中,确定钆塞酸增强磁共振成像(MR)中肝内胆管癌(IHCC)的影像学特征,重点在于区分 IHCC 和肝细胞癌(HCC),并比较 MR 成像与 CT 之间的结节增强模式。
本机构审查委员会批准了这项研究,并豁免了知情同意的要求。回顾性分析了 72 例连续患者(61 名男性;平均年龄,56.6 岁)的 78 个 IHCC 和一对一匹配的对照患者(56 名男性;平均年龄,56.6 岁)的 77 个 HCC 的钆塞酸增强 MR 和 CT 图像。使用单变量和多变量分析评估了可将 IHCC 与 HCC 区分开来的发现。使用增强标准和改良的肝脏成像报告和数据系统(mLI-RADS),通过常规洗脱和门静脉期(PVP)洗脱计算诊断 HCC 的敏感度和特异度。
在常规洗脱的 MR 成像中,增强标准诊断 HCC 的特异性分别为 94.9%(74/78)和 mLI-RADS 的 96.2%(75/78),而使用 PVP 洗脱则以牺牲敏感度为代价,获得了两种诊断标准均为 100%(78/78)的 HCC 特异性(增强标准从 76.6%(59/77)降至 63.6%(49/77),mLI-RADS 从 64.9%(50/77)降至 55.8%(43/77),P≤0.016)。在 CT 上,增强标准的常规洗脱的敏感度和特异性分别为 72.7%(56/77)和 97.4%(76/78),mLI-RADS 的分别为 67.5%(52/77)和 97.4%(76/78)。
在肝硬化肝脏中,与常规洗脱相比,钆塞酸增强 MR 成像中使用 PVP 洗脱可防止将 IHCC 误诊为 HCC,但会降低 HCC 的敏感度。RSNA,2016 在线补充材料可用于本文。