Literature DB >> 22798225

Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: enhancement patterns on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images.

Yusuhn Kang1, Jeong Min Lee, Seung Ho Kim, Joon Koo Han, Byung Ihn Choi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the enhancement patterns of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinomas (IMCCs) with emphasis on the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was institutional review board approved, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. Fifty patients (41 men, nine women; mean age, 62.3 years; range, 44-76 years) with IMCC underwent unenhanced and gadoxetic acid-enhanced T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging including dynamic phase and hepatobiliary phase imaging between May 2008 and December 2010. Signal intensity and enhancement patterns of lesions were compared with those of the liver parenchyma in each phase. Conspicuity and margin sharpness of lesions on dynamic phase and HBP images were rated on a 4- or 5-point scale and compared by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Percentage of relative enhancement was compared among pathologic subgroups by using the unpaired Student t test.
RESULTS: On dynamic phase images, 29 of 48 (60%) lesions showed a thin peripheral rim with centripetal or gradual progression. On HBP images, 48 of 50 (96%) IMCCs were hypointense, and two of 50 (4%) were hyperintense. Subjective ratings of conspicuity and margin sharpness were significantly higher on HBP (median scores, 5 and 4, respectively) (P < .001) than on the dynamic phase (median scores, 4 and 3, respectively) images (P < .001). Additional daughter nodules were found in five patients and intrahepatic metastasis was found in one. Percentage of relative enhancement on HBP images was significantly higher in moderately differentiated (66.4% ± 42.1) than in poorly differentiated (36.84% ± 21.5) tumors (P = .039) and in patients without (59.7% ± 28.8) than in those with (24.9% ± 14.7) (P = .036) lymph node metastasis.
CONCLUSION: The most prevalent enhancement pattern on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR images of IMCCs was a thin peripheral rim with internal heterogeneous enhancement during the dynamic phase. HBP images showed increased lesion conspicuity and better delineation of daughter nodules and intrahepatic metastasis, which may aid in the diagnosis of IMCC. © RSNA, 2012

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22798225     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112308

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  46 in total

1.  Differentiation of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging.

Authors:  Rihyeon Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Cheong-Il Shin; Eun Sun Lee; Jeong Hee Yoon; Ijin Joo; Seong Ho Kim; Inpyeong Hwang; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Solid liver masses: approach to management from the standpoint of a radiologist.

Authors:  Robert Garrett
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2013-12

3.  Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic value of preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Jieun Koh; Yong Eun Chung; Ji Hae Nahm; Ha Yan Kim; Kyung-Sik Kim; Young Nyun Park; Myeong-Jin Kim; Jin-Young Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Distinguishing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from poorly differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma using precontrast and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Yoshiki Asayama; Akihiro Nishie; Kousei Ishigami; Yasuhiro Ushijima; Yukihisa Takayama; Nobuhiro Fujita; Yuichiro Kubo; Shinichi Aishima; Ken Shirabe; Takashi Yoshiura; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.630

5.  Performance of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for the diagnosis of LI-RADS 4 category hepatocellular carcinoma nodules with different diameters.

Authors:  Qi Tang; Cong Ma
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 6.  Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from its various mimickers in liver magnetic resonance imaging: What are the tips when using hepatocyte-specific agents?

Authors:  Yang Shin Park; Chang Hee Lee; Jeong Woo Kim; Sora Shin; Cheol Min Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Monitoring outcomes in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients following hepatic resection.

Authors:  Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Pallavi Pandey; Ihab Kamel; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Hepat Oncol       Date:  2017-01-20

Review 8.  Magnetic resonance evaluations of biliary malignancy and condition at high-risk for biliary malignancy: Current status.

Authors:  Reiji Sugita
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2013-12-27

9.  Gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MR imaging of cholangiolocellular carcinoma of the liver: imaging characteristics and histopathological correlations.

Authors:  Hiroki Haradome; Toshiyuki Unno; Hiroyuki Morisaka; Yusuke Toda; Thomas C Kwee; Hiroshi Kondo; Keiji Sano; Tomoaki Ichikawa; Fukuo Kondo; Masahiko Sugitani; Tadatoshi Takayama
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Evidence Supporting LI-RADS Major Features for CT- and MR Imaging-based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  An Tang; Mustafa R Bashir; Michael T Corwin; Irene Cruite; Christoph F Dietrich; Richard K G Do; Eric C Ehman; Kathryn J Fowler; Hero K Hussain; Reena C Jha; Adib R Karam; Adrija Mamidipalli; Robert M Marks; Donald G Mitchell; Tara A Morgan; Michael A Ohliger; Amol Shah; Kim-Nhien Vu; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.