| Literature DB >> 33828393 |
Guang-Zi Shi1, Hong Chen1, Wei-Ke Zeng1, Ming Gao1, Meng-Zhu Wang2, Hui-Ting Zhang2, Jun Shen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: R2* estimation reflects the paramagnetism of the tumor tissue, which may be used to differentiate between benign and malignant liver lesions when contrast agents are contraindicated. AIM: To investigate whether R2* derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging can aid differentiating benign from malignant focal liver lesions (FLLs) and the impact of 2D region of interest (2D-ROI) and volume of interest (VOI) on the outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Benign lesion; Focal liver lesion; Hypoxia; Malignant lesion; Multi-echo Dixon imaging; R2*
Year: 2021 PMID: 33828393 PMCID: PMC8006098 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i12.1182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Two-dimensional region of interest and volume of interest. A-C: T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) (A), arterial phase contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) (B), and R2* map showed liver metastasis (yellow line) (C) confirmed by histology in a 59-year-old woman with lung cancer; D: Two-dimensional region of interest was drawn on the section showing the maximal tumor dimension; E-G: T2WI (E), arterial phase contrast-enhanced T1WI (F), and R2* map showed a live hemangioma (yellow line) (G) in a 59-year-old woman; H: Volume of interest was placed covering the entire tumor volume on R2* map. 2D-ROI: Two-dimensional region of interest; VOI: Volume of interest.
Baseline characteristics of malignant and benign focal liver lesions of 73 patients
|
|
|
|
|
| Per-patient basis | |||
| No. of patients (%) | 49 (67.1) | 24 (32.9) | 73 |
| Age (yr) | |||
| mean ± SD | 56.3 ± 10.3 | 52.1 ± 12.9 | 55.0 ± 11.2 |
| Range | 40-81 | 31-73 | 31-81 |
| Sex, | |||
| Male | 30 (61.2) | 11 (45.8) | 41 |
| Female | 19 (38.8) | 13 (54.2) | 32 |
| Per-lesion basis | |||
| No. of lesions | 78 (72.3) | 30 (27.8) | 108 |
| Maximum diameter (mm) | |||
| mean ± SD | 48.2 ± 37.7 | 32.3 ± 22.5 | 43.8 ± 34.8 |
| Range | 11-163 | 14-94 | 11-163 |
| Methods of diagnosis (%) | |||
| Pathology | 42 (38.9) | 7 (6.5) | 49 (45.4) |
| Imaging follow-up | 25 (23.1) | 23 (21.3) | 48 (44.4) |
| PET-CT | 11 (10.2) | – | 11 (10.2) |
FFL: Focal liver lesion; PET-CT: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography.
Clinicopathological characteristics of 108 focal liver lesions
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| No. of lesions (%) | 32 (29.6) | 9 (8.3) | 37 (34.3) | 25 (23.1) | 3 (2.8) | 2 (1.9) |
| Maximum diameter (mm) | ||||||
| mean ± SD | 66.3 ± 43.0 | 61.9 ± 5.9 | 29.1 ± 24.1 | 29.4 ± 21.8 | 32.0 ± 8.5 | 69.5 ± 12.0 |
| Range | 15-163 | 32-111 | 11-122 | 14-94 | 23-40 | 61-78 |
| Methods of diagnosis (%) | ||||||
| Pathology | 29 (26.9) | 6 (5.6) | 7 (6.5) | 5 (4.6) | 2 (1.9) | 0 (0) |
| Imaging follow-up | 3 (2.8) | 3 (2.8) | 19 (17.6) | 20 (18.5) | 1 (0.9) | 2 (1.9) |
| PET-CT | – | – | 11 (10.2) | – | – | – |
| Viral infection | ||||||
| HBV | 30 | 6 | 34 | 9 | 1 | 2 |
| Non-HBV | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
| NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| Cirrhosis on pathology (%) | ||||||
| Yes | 25 | – | – | – | – | – |
| No | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| NA | 6 | – | – | – | – | – |
| AFP (ng/mL) | ||||||
| ≤ 25 | 12 | 9 | 29 | – | – | – |
| > 25 | 20 | 0 | 7 | – | – | – |
| NA | 0 | 0 | 1 | – | – | – |
| CA 19-9 (U/mL) | ||||||
| ≤ 34 | 21 | 4 | 15 | – | – | – |
| > 34 | 9 | 5 | 20 | – | – | – |
| NA | 2 | 0 | 2 | – | – | – |
| CEA (ng/mL) | – | – | – | |||
| ≤ 5 | 27 | 7 | 15 | – | – | – |
| > 5 | 5 | 2 | 22 | – | – | – |
| NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – |
APF: -fetoprotein; CA 19-9: Carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CEA: Carcinoma embryonic antigen; FFL: Focal liver lesion; FNH: Focal nodular hyperplasia; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; IHCC: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; NA: Not available; PET-CT: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Data are shown as the mean SD.
Figure 2Bland–Altman plots showing interobserver variability in two-dimensional region of interest and volume of interest measurements. A: Two-dimensional region of interest (ROI); B: Volume of interest. The differences between the two readers using the two different ROI positioning methods were small. 2D-ROI: Two-dimensional region of interest; VOI: Volume of interest.
Mean R2* values for different focal liver lesions
|
|
|
|
| Malignant | ||
| Liver metastasis | 44.17 ± 21.90 | 48.42 ± 23.61 |
| HCC | 33.45 ± 10.15 | 35.41 ± 10.04 |
| IHCC | 28.72 ± 10.21 | 31.34 ± 9.65 |
| Benign | ||
| Hemangioma | 16.66 ± 8.18 | 19.36 ± 8.93 |
| FNH | 26.21 ± 5.61 | 27.87 ± 7.46 |
| Abscess | 23.29 ± 9.31 | 25.29 ± 10.46 |
Numerical data are expressed as the mean ± SD. 2D-ROI: Two-dimensional region of interest; FFL: Focal liver lesion; FNH: Focal nodular hyperplasia; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; IHCC: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; VOI: Volume of interest.
Figure 3Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the two positioning methods in differentiating between malignant group and benign group. Two-dimensional region of interest and volume of interest methods yielded similar results. 2D-ROI: Two-dimensional region of interest; VOI: Volume of interest; AUC: Area under the curve.