• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

肝细胞癌与癌旁、远处癌灶及肝脏背景组织的超高场扩散加权磁共振成像对比研究

[Comparative study of ultra-high field diffusion-weighted MRI imaging between hepatocellular carcinoma and paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissues].

作者信息

Yuan T, Tan B G, Ou J, Wu Y P, Chen T W

机构信息

Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Fifth People's Hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu 611130, China Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong 637000, China.

Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong 637000, China Department of Radiology, Panzhihua Central Hospital, Panzhihua 617000, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2024 Aug 20;32(8):726-733. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20240530-00276.

DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20240530-00276
PMID:39267567
Abstract

To investigate the differences in multi-b-value apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (eADC) between hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and paracancerous liver tissue, distant cancerous liver tissue, and background liver tissues by ultra-high field 3.0T diffusion-weighted (DWI) MRI imaging. Sixty-eight consecutive HCC cases confirmed by surgical pathology from January 2018 to October 2021 were enrolled and divided into a cirrhosis (=39) and a non-cirrhosis group (=29) according to the presence or absence of cirrhosis.The average ADC and eADC of liver tissues of paracancerous (including proximal and distal), distant cancerous, and background were measured by DWI images with diffusion sensitivity factors (b) of 50, 100, 400, 600 s/mm, and 1 000 s/mm, respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis H test and Bonferroni method were used to test the differences between the measured values of the five tissues. The statistical differences were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the five tissues by parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC). The comparison of average ADC and eADC among five types of tissues in the liver cirrhosis group showed that the average ADC and eADC measured at b values of 50, 100, 400, and 600 s/mm had statistically significant differences (adjusted <0.005) between cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distal paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue, as well as the average ADC measured at b=1 000 s/mm between cancerous and proximal paracancerous tissue. The average ADC and eADC in the non-cirrhosis group had statistically significant differences (adjusted <0.005) between cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distant paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue measured at b values of 50, 100, and 400 s/mm, respectively. The average ADC and eADC measured at b=600 s/mm showed statistically significant differences (adjusted <0.005) between cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distal paracancerous, and distant cancerous liver tissue, as well as the average ADC measured at b=1 000 s/mm between cancerous and distal paracancerous, and distant cancerous liver tissue. The average ADC and eADC in the cirrhosis group had no statistically significant difference between the proximal paracancerous and the distant cancerous, as well as the background liver tissue measured at b-values of 50, 100, 400, 600, and 1 000 s/mm, respectively (adjusted >0.005), while there were statistically significant differences (adjusted <0.005) in the average ADC values in the non-cirrhosis group between the proximal paracancerous and the distant paracancerous and background liver tissues at b=50 s/mm, as well as the average ADC and eADC values between the proximal paracancerous and the distant liver tissues at b=100 s/mm. The average ADC and eADC values measured in the cirrhosis group and non-cirrhosis group had no statistically significant difference between the distant paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue (adjusted >0.005). The efficacy of average ADC and eADC in distinguishing five types of tissues (cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distant paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue) showed that in the cirrhosis group, the diagnostic efficacy was best at b=50 s/mm. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of average ADC was 0.815, 0.828, 0.855, and 0.855, respectively, and the AUC of average eADC was 0.815, 0.830, 0.856, and 0.855, respectively. The diagnostic efficacy was best in the non cirrhosis group at b=100 s/mm, with average ADC AUCs of 0.787, 0.823, 0.841, and 0.821, and average eADC AUCs of 0.836, 0.874, 0.893, and 0.873, respectively. The AUC of the average ADC in the non-cirrhosis group for distinguishing between proximal paracancerous and distant cancerous liver tissues, as well as proximal paracancerous and background liver tissues, with b=50 s/mm, were 0.605 and 0.604, respectively. The average AUC of ADC and eADC for distinguishing between proximal paracancerous and distant liver tissues with b=100 s/mm were 0.619 and 0.620, respectively. The average ADC and eADC measured by multiple b-values are helpful in distinguishing HCC from proximal paracancerous, distal paracancerous, distant-cancerous, and background liver tissues in patients with cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis, while the average ADC and eADC at b=50 s/mm and 100 s/mm exhibit differences between the proximal paracancerous from the distant cancerous liver tissue and background liver tissue in patients with non-cirrhosis.

摘要

通过超高场3.0T扩散加权(DWI)磁共振成像,研究肝细胞癌(HCC)与癌旁肝组织、远处癌性肝组织及背景肝组织之间多b值表观扩散系数(ADC)和指数表观扩散系数(eADC)的差异。纳入2018年1月至2021年10月期间经手术病理确诊的68例连续HCC病例,根据是否存在肝硬化分为肝硬化组(n = 39)和非肝硬化组(n = 29)。分别采用扩散敏感因子(b)为50、100、400、600 s/mm²和1000 s/mm²的DWI图像测量癌旁(包括近端和远端)、远处癌性及背景肝组织的平均ADC和eADC。采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验和Bonferroni方法检验五种组织测量值之间的差异。利用参数化受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线和曲线下面积(AUC)评估五种组织的诊断效能。肝硬化组五种肝组织类型的平均ADC和eADC比较显示,在b值为50、100、400和600 s/mm²时,癌性与近端癌旁、远端癌旁、远处癌性及背景肝组织之间的平均ADC和eADC差异有统计学意义(校正P<0.005),在b = 1000 s/mm²时癌性与近端癌旁组织之间的平均ADC差异有统计学意义。非肝硬化组在b值分别为50、100和400 s/mm²时,癌性与近端癌旁、远端癌旁、远处癌性及背景肝组织之间的平均ADC和eADC差异有统计学意义(校正P<0.005)。在b = 600 s/mm²时,癌性与近端癌旁、远端癌旁及远处癌性肝组织之间的平均ADC和eADC差异有统计学意义(校正P<0.005),在b = 1000 s/mm²时癌性与远端癌旁及远处癌性肝组织之间的平均ADC差异有统计学意义。肝硬化组在b值为50、100、400、600和1000 s/mm²时,近端癌旁与远处癌性以及背景肝组织之间的平均ADC和eADC差异无统计学意义(校正P>0.005),而非肝硬化组在b = 50 s/mm²时近端癌旁与远处癌旁及背景肝组织之间的平均ADC值差异有统计学意义(校正P<0.005),在b = 100 s/mm²时近端癌旁与远处肝组织之间的平均ADC和eADC值差异有统计学意义(校正P<0.005)。肝硬化组和非肝硬化组中,远端癌旁、远处癌性及背景肝组织之间的平均ADC和eADC值差异无统计学意义(校正P>0.005)。平均ADC和eADC区分五种组织(癌性、近端癌旁、远端癌旁、远处癌性及背景肝组织)的效能显示,在肝硬化组中,b = 50 s/mm²时诊断效能最佳。平均ADC的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.815、0.828、0.855和0.855,平均eADC的AUC分别为0.815、0.830、0.856和0.855。在非肝硬化组中,b = 100 s/mm²时诊断效能最佳,平均ADC的AUC分别为0.787、0.823、0.841和0.821,平均eADC的AUC分别为0.836、0.874、0.893和0.873。在非肝硬化组中,b = 50 s/mm²时区分近端癌旁与远处癌性肝组织以及近端癌旁与背景肝组织的平均ADC的AUC分别为0.605和0.604。b = 100 s/mm²时区分近端癌旁与远处肝组织的平均ADC和eADC的AUC分别为0.619和0.620。多个b值测量的平均ADC和eADC有助于区分肝硬化和非肝硬化患者的HCC与近端癌旁、远端癌旁、远处癌性及背景肝组织,而在非肝硬化患者中,b = 50 s/mm²和100 s/mm²时的平均ADC和eADC在近端癌旁与远处癌性肝组织及背景肝组织之间存在差异。

相似文献

1
[Comparative study of ultra-high field diffusion-weighted MRI imaging between hepatocellular carcinoma and paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissues].肝细胞癌与癌旁、远处癌灶及肝脏背景组织的超高场扩散加权磁共振成像对比研究
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2024 Aug 20;32(8):726-733. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20240530-00276.
2
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for predicting histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging.体素内不相干运动扩散加权磁共振成像预测肝细胞癌组织学分级:与常规扩散加权成像的比较。
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb 28;24(8):929-940. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i8.929.
3
The correlation between magnetic resonance diffusion parameters and Ki-67 and PCNA in hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis rats.肝纤维化和肝硬化大鼠磁共振扩散参数与Ki-67和增殖细胞核抗原的相关性
Ann Palliat Med. 2021 Jul;10(7):8112-8122. doi: 10.21037/apm-21-1745.
4
Evaluation of Exponential ADC (eADC) and Computed DWI (cDWI) for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.评估指数型扩散加权成像(eADC)和计算扩散加权成像(cDWI)在前列腺癌检测中的应用。
Rofo. 2018 Aug;190(8):758-766. doi: 10.1055/a-0637-9980. Epub 2018 Jul 25.
5
Hepatocellular Carcinoma: In Vivo Evaluation of Water Percentage as a Prognostic Biomarker Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging 3D-VIBE Multiecho Dixon.肝细胞癌:磁共振成像 3D-VIBE 多回波 Dixon 技术评估水百分比作为预后生物标志物的体内研究
Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2018 Sep;33(7):300-306. doi: 10.1089/cbr.2018.2483. Epub 2018 Aug 15.
6
Application of apparent diffusion coefficient and exponent apparent diffusion coefficient values in magnetic resonance imaging diffusion-weighted imaging to differentiate benign and malignant ovarian epithelial tumors.表观扩散系数和指数表观扩散系数值在磁共振成像扩散加权成像中用于鉴别卵巢上皮性良恶性肿瘤的应用
J Cancer Res Ther. 2016 Jan-Mar;12(1):401-5. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.163667.
7
Contribution of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the characterization of hepatocellular carcinomas and dysplastic nodules in cirrhotic liver.扩散加权磁共振成像在肝硬化肝脏中肝细胞癌和发育异常结节特征描述中的作用
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010 Jul;34(4):506-12. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181da3671.
8
Diffusion Kurtosis MR Imaging versus Conventional Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing Hepatocellular Carcinoma from Benign Hepatic Nodules.磁共振扩散峰度成像与常规扩散加权成像鉴别肝细胞癌与良性肝结节的比较
Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul 17;2019:2030147. doi: 10.1155/2019/2030147. eCollection 2019.
9
[Texture analysis of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to identify atypically enhanced small hepatocellular carcinoma and dysplastic nodules under the background of cirrhosis].[磁共振扩散加权成像纹理分析鉴别肝硬化背景下非典型强化小肝细胞癌及发育异常结节]
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2020 Jan 20;28(1):37-42. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-3418.2020.01.010.
10
Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Quantitation for Differentiate Hepatocellular Carcinoma from Hepatocellular Adenoma.动态对比增强磁共振成像和表观扩散系数定量在肝细胞癌与肝细胞腺瘤鉴别诊断中的应用。
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024 Mar 1;25(3):931-937. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.3.931.