Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, No. 180 Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, No. 180 Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Eur Radiol. 2023 Sep;33(9):5993-6000. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09598-w. Epub 2023 Apr 4.
To compare the clinical and MRI features of primary hepatic lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC) categorized as LR-M or LR-4/5 using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 and to determine the prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival (RFS).
In this retrospective study, 37 patients with surgically confirmed LELC were included. Two independent observers evaluated preoperative MRI features according to the LI-RADS version 2018. Clinical and imaging features were compared between two groups. RFS and the associated factors were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and log-rank test.
In total, 37 patients (mean age, 58.5 ± 10.3 years) were evaluated. Sixteen (43.2%) LELCs were categorized as LR-M and twenty-one (56.8%) LELCs were categorized as LR-4/5. In the multivariate analysis, the LR-M category was an independent factor for RFS (HR 7.908, 95% CI 1.170-53.437; p = 0.033). RFS rates were significantly lower in patients with LR-M LELCs than in patients with LR-4/5 LELCs (5-year RFS rate, 43.8% vs.85.7%; p = 0.002).
The LI-RADS category was significantly associated with postsurgical prognosis of LELC, with tumor categorized as LR-M having a worse RFS than those categorized as LR-4/5.
• Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma patients categorized as LR-M have worse recurrence-free survival than those categorized as LR-4/5. • MRI-based LI-RADS categorization was an independent factor for postoperative prognosis of primary hepatic lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma.
使用肝脏影像报告和数据系统(LI-RADS)第 2018 版对归类为 LR-M 或 LR-4/5 的原发性肝淋巴上皮样癌(LELC)的临床和 MRI 特征进行比较,并确定无复发生存率(RFS)的预后因素。
本回顾性研究纳入了 37 例经手术证实的 LELC 患者。两名独立观察者根据 LI-RADS 第 2018 版评估术前 MRI 特征。比较两组之间的临床和影像学特征。使用 Cox 比例风险回归分析、Kaplan-Meier 分析和对数秩检验评估 RFS 及相关因素。
共评估了 37 例患者(平均年龄,58.5±10.3 岁)。16 例(43.2%)LELC 归类为 LR-M,21 例(56.8%)归类为 LR-4/5。多变量分析显示,LR-M 类别是 RFS 的独立因素(HR 7.908,95%CI 1.170-53.437;p=0.033)。LR-M 型 LELC 患者的 RFS 率明显低于 LR-4/5 型 LELC 患者(5 年 RFS 率,43.8% vs.85.7%;p=0.002)。
LI-RADS 类别与 LELC 术后预后显著相关,LR-M 分类的肿瘤 RFS 比 LR-4/5 分类的肿瘤差。
•LR-M 分类的淋巴上皮样癌患者的无复发生存率比 LR-4/5 分类的患者差。•基于 MRI 的 LI-RADS 分类是原发性肝淋巴上皮样癌术后预后的独立因素。