Qiong Song1,2,3, Yixian Guo1, Xiuzhong Yao1, Shengxiang Rao1, Chengyao Qian3, Dexian Ye3, Mengsu Zeng4. 1. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, No 130, Dongan Rd, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 2. Radiology Department, Xuzhou Mining Group General Hospital, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. 3. Shanghai Aitrox Technology Corporation Limited, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, No 130, Dongan Rd, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. zeng.mengsu@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the difference of evaluating the microcirculatory function status of primary small HCC between DCE-MRI with two-compartmental pharmacokinetic model and IVIM-DWI. METHODS: 27 patients (22 men, 5 women; mean age, 49 years; range 36-65 years) with primary single sHCC who underwent IVIM-DWI and DCE-MRI before the operation were included in this retrospective study. The MR perfusion parameters are Ktrans, Ve, Kep, D, D* and f. Pathological results include pathological grade (low grade ≤ II, high grade > II) and MVD. The perfusion parameters and pathological results of sHCC were analyzed and compared in their relevance, sensitivity and specificity. Statistical methods included Spearman and ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: The perfusion parameters (Ktrans, Kep, D*, f) were significantly positive correlated (r = 0.892, 0.808, 0.589 and 0.543, P = 0.000, 0.000, 0.001 and 0.003 with MVD of sHCC. The parameter Ve and D values were negatively correlated (r = - 0.454 and - 0.399, P = 0.017 and 0.039, respectively) with the pathological grade. Regarding the evaluation MVD of sHCC, the evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity performance was present in descending order: Ktrans > Kep > PF > D*. In the evaluation pathological grade of sHCC, the sensitivity and specificity were better by parameters D than Ve. CONCLUSION: DCE-MRI is better than IVIM-DWI for evaluation microcirculation functional status of sHCC. But for evaluating the pathological grade, IVIM-DWI is better than DCE-MRI. Combination of the two imaging techniques may provide more comprehensive evaluation in microcirculation functional status of the sHCC.
PURPOSE: To compare the difference of evaluating the microcirculatory function status of primary small HCC between DCE-MRI with two-compartmental pharmacokinetic model and IVIM-DWI. METHODS: 27 patients (22 men, 5 women; mean age, 49 years; range 36-65 years) with primary single sHCC who underwent IVIM-DWI and DCE-MRI before the operation were included in this retrospective study. The MR perfusion parameters are Ktrans, Ve, Kep, D, D* and f. Pathological results include pathological grade (low grade ≤ II, high grade > II) and MVD. The perfusion parameters and pathological results of sHCC were analyzed and compared in their relevance, sensitivity and specificity. Statistical methods included Spearman and ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: The perfusion parameters (Ktrans, Kep, D*, f) were significantly positive correlated (r = 0.892, 0.808, 0.589 and 0.543, P = 0.000, 0.000, 0.001 and 0.003 with MVD of sHCC. The parameter Ve and D values were negatively correlated (r = - 0.454 and - 0.399, P = 0.017 and 0.039, respectively) with the pathological grade. Regarding the evaluation MVD of sHCC, the evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity performance was present in descending order: Ktrans > Kep > PF > D*. In the evaluation pathological grade of sHCC, the sensitivity and specificity were better by parameters D than Ve. CONCLUSION: DCE-MRI is better than IVIM-DWI for evaluation microcirculation functional status of sHCC. But for evaluating the pathological grade, IVIM-DWI is better than DCE-MRI. Combination of the two imaging techniques may provide more comprehensive evaluation in microcirculation functional status of the sHCC.
Authors: Nina M Muñoz; Adeeb A Minhaj; Kiersten L Maldonado; Charles V Kingsley; Andrea C Cortes; Houra Taghavi; Urszula Polak; Jennifer M Mitchell; Joe E Ensor; James A Bankson; Asif Rashid; Rony Avritscher Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Nicholas Onaca; Gary L Davis; Linda W Jennings; Robert M Goldstein; Goran B Klintmalm Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Yi Zhou; Jing Zheng; Cui Yang; Juan Peng; Ning Liu; Lin Yang; Xiao-Ming Zhang Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 5.374