| Literature DB >> 32581583 |
Tao Zhang1, Gaurab Pandey1, Lin Xu1, Wen Chen1, Liangrui Gu1, Yijun Wu1, Xiuwen Chen2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the value of two-trait predictor of venous invasion (TTPVI) in the prediction of pathological microvascular invasion (pMVI) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR).Entities:
Keywords: CT; MRI; hepatocellular carcinoma; microvascular invasion; two-trait predictor of venous invasion
Year: 2020 PMID: 32581583 PMCID: PMC7276193 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S245475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1Contrast-enhanced MRI illustration of the patterns of tumor margin. Coronal view images: (A) Tumor with a smooth margin. (B) Tumor with focal extraocular extension. (C) Tumor with multinodular confluent appearance.
Figure 2Contrast-enhanced MRI illustration of the peritumoral enhancement. (A) Axial view image showing detectable arterial-enhancing area adjacent to the tumor border on arterial phase images and (B) Coronal view images showing isointense signal compared with the liver parenchyma on equilibrium phase images.
Figure 3Contrast-enhanced MRI illustration of a two-trait predictor of venous invasion. Axial view images: (A) Tumor with the presence of internal arteries, and (B) Hypointense halos in the portal venous phase, suggestive of MVI.
Univariate Analysis of Clinical Characteristics and Histopathological Findings of Patients with and Without Microvascular Invasion
| Clinical Risk Factors | pMVI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negative (n=75) | Positive (n=61) | ||
| Age, years (mean ±SD) | 50±9.8 | 48±9.2 | 0.752 |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 58 | 48 | 0.246 |
| Female | 15 | 7 | |
| AFP level (ug/l) | |||
| <15 | 28 | 13 | 0.043 |
| ≥15 | 47 | 48 | |
| Size, cm (mean ± SD) | 3.6±2.7 | 7.9±4.5 | <0.01 |
| Tumor differentiation (Edmondson-Steiner grade) | |||
| G1-G2 | 45 | 17 | <0.01 |
| G3-G4 | 30 | 44 | |
| Pathological tumor size (cm) | |||
| ≤3 | 40 | 7 | <0.01 |
| 3~5 | 18 | 12 | |
| 5~10 | 13 | 25 | |
| >10 | 4 | 17 | |
Univariate Analysis of Radiological Findings for Patients with and Without Microvascular Invasion
| rMVI | Total | pMVI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative (n=75) | Positive (n=61) | |||
| Tumor capsule | ||||
| Negative | 32 | 19 | 13 | 0.714 |
| Positive | 104 | 56 | 48 | |
| Incomplete capsule | 75 | 39 | 36 | |
| Complete capsule | 29 | 17 | 12 | |
| Peritumoral enhancement | ||||
| Negative | 118 | 71 | 47 | 0.003 |
| Positive | 18 | 4 | 14 | |
| Tumor margin | ||||
| Smooth | 70 | 47 | 23 | <0.01 |
| Nonsmooth | 66 | 28 | 38 | |
| Focal extranodular | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| Multinodular | 61 | 28 | 33 | |
| TTPVI | ||||
| Negative | 23 | 20 | 3 | <0.01 |
| Positive | 113 | 55 | 58 | |
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Risk Factor in Patients with and Without Microvascular Invasion
| Risk Factor | Significance | Odds Ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Upper | ||||
| Tumor size | <0.001 | 1.294 | 1.155 | 1.451 |
| Tumor differentiation | <0.001 | 1.384 | 1.224 | 1.564 |
| TTPVI | 0.045 | 4.802 | 1.037 | 22.233 |
Figure 4(A) The difference of tumor size between MVI positive and negative lesions. The tumor size shows a significant difference between the two groups. (B) ROC curve of size for predicting MVI.