| Literature DB >> 28418840 |
Sheng Zhang1,2, Si-Ming Xie3, Yong-Hua Chen1, Xu-Bao Liu1, Gang Mai4.
Abstract
We used multi-row detector computed tomography (MDCT) to identify the distinguishing characteristics of hepatic paragonimiasis and small hepatocellular carcinoma lesions. We analyzed a cohort of 60 patients, of which 26 had hepatic paragonimiasis and 34 with a small (≤ 3cm) hepatocellular carcinoma. MDCT detected 65 lesions that were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed based on their imaging features. Both groups showed distinct MDCT imaging features that could contribute to an accurate diagnosis. In the paragonimiasis group, 75% (21/28) lesions were located in the hepatic subcapsular region, whereas only 10.8% (4/37) of lesions in the hepatocellular carcinoma group were subcapsular. Most hepatic paragonimiasis lesions (57.1%; 16/28) also showed characteristic tubular or tunnel features that were not present in hepatocellular carcinomas. Further, 71.4% (20/28) paragonimiasis lesions were rim enhanced with irregular tract-like non-enhanced internal areas with a characteristic target loop, while 94.6% (35/37) of small hepatocellular carcinoma lesions showed homogenous enhancement in the arterial and venous phase. In addition, the period CT values for hepatic paragonimiasis were less than those of hepatic carcinomas (P<0.001). These clinically significant findings illustrate the diagnostic features that enable one to distinguish hepatic paragonimiasis from small hepatocellular carcinomas.Entities:
Keywords: MDCT; carcinoma; hepatic; hepatocellular; paragonimiasis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28418840 PMCID: PMC5514909 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Characteristics of patients
| Hepatic paragonimiasis | Hepatocellular carcinoma | P values* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 41.58±12.16 | 45.24±10.17 | 0.21 | |
| 16(26.7%) | 20(33.3%) | ||
| 10(16.7%) | 14(23.3%) | 0.83 | |
| 36.53±0.35 | 36.56±0.35 | 0.73 | |
| 7.08±3.38 | 5.79±1.59 | 0.08 | |
| 0.44±0.30 | 0.54±0.28 | 0.17 | |
| 26.13±3.97 | 25.59±3.24 | 0.57 | |
| 16.10±9.54 | 18.10±10.54 | 0.45 | |
| 14.30±10.63 | 16.57±12.00 | 0.45 | |
| 18.30±13.22 | 24.97±17.75 | 0.10 | |
* tumors markers measured by electrochemiluminescence.
** P<0.05 statistical significance.
Comparison of size and phase of the CT values
| Hepatic paragonimiasis | Hepatocellular carcinoma | P values | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.18±0.60 | 2.08±0.61 | 0.50 | |
| 25.21±4.69 | 44.62±7.57 | <0.001 | |
| 30.46±5.69 | 61.03±7.16 | <0.001 | |
| 36.54±7.34 | 75.86±6.66 | <0.001 |
Data are expressed as Mean±SD; P<0.05 is considered statistically significant.
Figure 1(IA) Hepatic paragonimiasis in a 50-year-old male patient
Enhanced MDCT scan at portal venous phase shows heterogeneous enhancement. (IB) Hepatocellular carcinoma in a 45-year-old female. Enhanced MDCT scan at portal venous phase shows homogeneous enhancement. (IIA) Hepatic paragonimiasis in a young male. Enhanced MDCT scan at portal venous phase shows solid, ring-enhancing with forming target loop as indicated by the arrow. (IIB) Image shows tubular formation in early phase of paragonimiasis as indicated by the arrow. (IIIA) Pathological finding showing an egg being engulfed by a macrophage with coagulative necrosis within the lesion surrounded by (IIIB) infiltration of a large number of barrier-like arrayed epithelioid cells.