Kierans Andrea S, Lafata Kyle J, Ludwig Daniel R, Burke Lauren M B, Chernyak Victoria, Fowler Kathryn J, Fraum Tyler J, McGinty Katrina A, McInnes Matthew D F, Mendiratta-Lala Mishal, Cunha Guilherme Moura, Allen Brian C, Hecht Elizabeth M, Jaffe Tracy A, Kalisz Kevin R, Ranathunga Damithri S, Wildman-Tobriner Benjamin, Cardona Diana M, Aslam Anum, Gaur Sonia, Bashir Mustafa R
Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023 Jan;57(1):308-317. doi: 10.1002/jmri.28218. Epub 2022 May 5.
There is a sparsity of data evaluating outcomes of patients with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) (LR)-M lesions.
To compare overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) between hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) meeting LR-M criteria and to evaluate factors associated with prognosis.
Retrospective.
Patients at risk for HCC with at least one LR-M lesion with histologic diagnosis, from 8 academic centers, yielding 120 patients with 120 LR-M lesions (84 men [mean age 62 years] and 36 women [mean age 66 years]).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 1.5 and 3.0 T/3D T -weighted gradient echo, T -weighted fast spin-echo.
The imaging categorization of each lesion as LR-M was made clinically by a single radiologist at each site and patient outcome measures were collected.
OS, PFS, and potential independent predictors were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard model. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant.
A total of 120 patients with 120 LR-M lesions were included; on histology 65 were HCC and 55 were iCCA. There was similar median OS for patients with LR-M HCC compared to patients with iCCA (738 days vs. 769 days, P = 0.576). There were no significant differences between patients with HCC and iCCA in terms of sex (47:18 vs. 37:18, P = 0.549), age (63.0 ± 8.4 vs. 63.4 ± 7.8, P = 0.847), etiology of liver disease (P = 0.202), presence of cirrhosis (100% vs. 100%, P = 1.000), tumor size (4.73 ± 3.28 vs. 4.75 ± 2.58, P = 0.980), method of lesion histologic diagnosis (P = 0.646), and proportion of patients who underwent locoregional therapy (60.0% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.100) or surgery (134.8 ± 165.5 vs. 142.5 ± 205.6, P = 0.913). Using multivariable analysis, nonsurgical compared to surgical management (HR, 4.58), larger tumor size (HR, 1.19), and higher MELD score (HR, 1.12) were independently associated with worse OS.
There was similar OS in patients with LR-M HCC and LR-M iCCA, suggesting that LR-M imaging features may more closely reflect patient outcomes than histology.
3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.
评估肝脏影像报告和数据系统(LI-RADS,简称LR)-M类病变患者预后的数据较为匮乏。
比较符合LR-M标准的肝细胞癌(HCC)和肝内胆管癌(iCCA)患者的总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS),并评估与预后相关的因素。
回顾性研究。
来自8个学术中心的有HCC风险且至少有1个经组织学诊断为LR-M类病变的患者,共纳入120例患者的120个LR-M类病变(84例男性[平均年龄62岁]和36例女性[平均年龄66岁])。
场强/序列:1.5和3.0T/三维T加权梯度回波序列、T加权快速自旋回波序列。
每个病变的影像分类为LR-M由各中心的一名放射科医生临床判定,并收集患者的预后指标。
采用Kaplan-Meier法、对数秩检验和Cox比例风险模型评估OS、PFS及潜在的独立预测因素。P值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
共纳入120例患者的120个LR-M类病变;组织学检查显示65例为HCC,55例为iCCA。LR-M类HCC患者与iCCA患者的中位OS相似(738天对769天,P = 0.576)。HCC患者和iCCA患者在性别(47:18对37:18,P = 0.549)、年龄(63.0±8.4对63.4±7.8,P = 0.847)、肝脏疾病病因(P = 0.202)、肝硬化情况(100%对100%,P = 1.000)、肿瘤大小(4.73±3.28对4.75±2.58,P = 0.980)、病变组织学诊断方法(P = 0.646)以及接受局部区域治疗的患者比例(60.0%对38.2%,P = 0.100)或手术治疗的患者比例(134.8±165.5对142.5±205.6,P = 0.913)方面均无显著差异。多变量分析显示,与手术治疗相比,非手术治疗(风险比[HR],4.58)、肿瘤较大(HR,1.19)和终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分较高(HR,1.12)与较差的OS独立相关。
LR-M类HCC和LR-M类iCCA患者的OS相似,提示LR-M影像特征可能比组织学更能准确反映患者预后。
3级 技术效能:5级