| Literature DB >> 31527916 |
Huiming Yi1, Baohuan Cai2, Xi Ai3, Ruobing Liu1, Kaiyan Li1, Wei Zhang1.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for preoperative assessment of liver reserve function in patients with liver tumors. The indocyanine green (ICG) clearance tests and CEUS examinations of 45 noncirrhotic patients with liver tumors were performed prior to liver resection. Parameters time to peak (TtoPk), arrival time (Atm) as well as perfusion parameters A, k and A x k were generated from time-intensity curve (TIC) of CEUS. The correlation analyses of the ICG clearance per unit time (ICGK) and the retention rate at 15 min (ICGR15) with TtoPk, Atm, A, k and A x k were performed, and the diagnostic ability as well as optimal cut-off values of TtoPk and Atm for differentiating patients with ICGR15>10% from ICGR15<10% were analyzed. There were significant correlations of ICGK with TtoPk and Atm, and the correlation coefficients were 0.363 (p = 0.014) and -0.482 (p = 0.001), respectively. Significant correlations of ICGR15 with TtoPk and Atm were revealed, and the correlation coefficients were -0.416 (p = 0.004) and 0.303 (p = 0.043), respectively. No correlation of ICGK or ICGR15 with A, k and A x k was found in this study. There were significant differences in TtoPk and Atm between patients with ICGR15>10% and ICGR15<10% (p = 0.028 and p = 0.026, respectively). TtoPk and Atm both had good diagnostic abilities in diagnosing patients with ICGR15>10% verusus ICGR15<10% (AUROC = 0.711 and 0.721, respectively). For ICGR15>10% vs ICGR15, the optimal cut-off values of TtoPk and Atm were 13.307 s and 11.007 s, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity were 75.0% and 72.7%, 60.6% and 75.0%, respectively. This study revealed that CEUS has the potential to be a new method to evaluate the liver reserve function of patients. With the optimal cut-off values of TtoPk and Atm, qualitative assessment of patients with ICGR15>10% could be more easily achieved by CEUS with good diagnostic abilities.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31527916 PMCID: PMC6748425 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics, ICGR15, ICGK and parameters of TIC from CEUS of patients.
| Total (n = 45) | ICGR15<10% (n = 33) | ICGR15>10% (n = 12) | ICGR15<10% vs ICGR15>10% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age(years) | 54.7±10.8 | 53.1±11.1 | 59.0±8.4 | p = 0.78 |
| Height(cm) | 169.0±6.3 | 170.0±6.8 | 169.6±4.7 | p = 0.84 |
| Weight(kg) | 63.5±10.9 | 63.3±10.8 | 64.1±11.1 | p = 0.110 |
| ALT(U/L) | 30.0±16.3 | 28.5±16.0 | 34.2±16.6 | p = 0.318 |
| AST(U/L) | 29.7±13.6 | 25.7±11.0 | 40.5±14.2 | p = 0.001 |
| TBil(μmol/L) | 13.7±6.3 | 12.4±4.9 | 17.4±8.1 | p = 0.020 |
| DBil(μmol/L) | 4.8±2.9 | 3.9±1.9 | 7.0±3.8 | p = 0.001 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 45.6±3.7 | 46.1±3.3 | 44.3±4.2 | p = 0.161 |
| GGT (U/L) | 65.7±52.3 | 59.1±51.6 | 84.0±49.8 | p = 0.165 |
| ALP (U/L) | 84.0±27.8 | 80.5±27.4 | 93.6±26.7 | p = 0.172 |
| ICGK(/min) | 0.209±0.076 | 0.246±0.049 | 0.108±0.036 | |
| ICGR15(%) | 8.96±11.40 | 3.17±2.22 | 24.88±11.14 | |
| TtoPk(s) | 12.054±4.747 | 12.992±4.837 | 9.474±3.328 | p = 0.028 |
| Atm(s) | 12.808±3.873 | 12.035±3.476 | 14.934±4.106 | p = 0.026 |
| A | 23.551±4.933 | 23.637±5.036 | 23.314±4.865 | p = 0.852 |
| k | 0.319±0.145 | 0.319±0.151 | 0.321±0.124 | p = 0.960 |
| A x k | 7.580±4.007 | 7.632±4.252 | 7.437±3.232 | p = 0.888 |
ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; TBil, total bilirubin; DBil, direct bilirubin; GGT, Gamma-glutamyltransferase; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ICG, indocyanine green
ICGK, ICG clearance per unit time; ICGR15, retention rate of ICG at 15 min
CEUS, contras-enhanced ultrasound; TIC, time-intensity curve; TtoPk, time to peak; Atm, arrival time.
The correlation coefficients of ICGK and ICGR15 with parameters of TIC from CEUS.
| TtoPk | Atm | A | k | A x k | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICGK | 0.363(p = 0.014) | -0.482(p = 0.001) | 0.151(p = 0.321) | 0.012(p = 0.939) | 0.078(p = 0.609) |
| ICGR15 | -0.416(p = 0.004) | 0.303(p = 0.043) | 0.076(p = 0.619) | -0.021(p = 0.892) | -0.012(p = 0.936) |
TtoPk, time to peak; Atm, arrival time.
Fig 1Results of correlation analyses of ICGK with TtoPk and Atm.
ICGK is positively correlated with TtoPk, while negatively correlated to Atm. ICGK, ICG clearance per unit time; ICGR15, retention rate of ICG at 15 min; TtoPk, time to peak; Atm, arrival time.
Fig 2Results of correlation analyses of ICGK with TtoPk and Atm.
ICGR15 is negatively correlated with TtoPk, while positively correlated to Atm. ICGK, ICG clearance per unit time; ICGR15, retention rate of ICG at 15 min; TtoPk, time to peak; Atm, arrival time.
Fig 3Relationship between patients with ICGR15>10% and ICGR15<10% investigated by TtoPk and Atm.
TtoPk decreased in patients with ICGR15>10%, while Atm increased in patients with ICGR15>10%. TtoPk, time to peak; Atm, arrival time.
Fig 4ROC analyses of TtoPk (a) and Atm (b) for diagnosing ICGR15>10% versus ICGR15<10%. TtoPk, time to peak; Atm, arrival time; AUROC, area under ROC.
Optimal cut-off values of TtoPk and Atm for differentiating patients with ICGR15>10% from ICGR15<10%.
| Optimal cut-off value(s) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden Index | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TtoPk | 13.307 | 75.00% | 72.70% | 0.477 |
| Atm | 11.007 | 60.60% | 75.00% | 0.356 |
TtoPk, time to peak; Atm, arrival time