Suppr超能文献

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.

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。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验