| Literature DB >> 34232180 |
Shuhao Deng1, Quan Jiang1, Yongbing Wang2, Xin Lu3, Yuan Zhang1.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: To analyze the correlation between quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) parameters and angiogenesis in primary small hepatocellular carcinoma (sHCC) with varying degrees of differentiation.According to varying degrees of differentiation, a total of 90 primary sHCC patients admitted to our hospital from July 2018 to January 2020 were selected and divided into poorly differentiated group (24 cases), moderately differentiated group (31 cases), and highly differentiated group (35 cases). All patients received real-time CEUS before surgery. The tumor diameter, microvascular morphology, grading of color blood flow, contrast-enhanced performance in different phases, quantitative CEUS parameters, expression of angiogenesis-related genes, and microvessel density (MVD) were compared among the 3 groups. The correlation between quantitative parameters of CEUS and angiogenesis indexes was analyzed by Spearman rank correlation analysis.Spearman rank correlation analysis showed that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) expression and MVD were negatively correlated with the time to peak (TTP), wash-out time, and peak accelerating time (PAT) (r < 0, P < .05), and were positively correlated with enhancing slope rate (ESR) and peak intensity increasing rate (PIIR) (r > 0, P < .05).CEUS is able to identify varying degrees of differentiation in primary sHCC, and the quantitative CEUS parameters are closely related to angiogenesis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34232180 PMCID: PMC8270601 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.889
Figure 1Comparison of tumor diameters and microvascular morphologies among the 3 groups. A: There were no significant differences in tumor diameter among the 3 groups; B: There were significant differences in microvascular morphology among the 3 groups.
Comparison of grading of color blood flow among the 3 groups (n).
| Group | Number of cases | Grade 0 | Grade I | Grade II | Grade III |
| Poorly differentiated group | 24 | 0 | 5 | 11 | 8 |
| Moderately differentiated group | 31 | 0 | 14 | 10 | 7 |
| Highly differentiated group | 35 | 0 | 15 | 18 | 2∗ |
Comparison among 3 groups.
P < .05.
Comparison of contrast-enhanced performances among the 3 groups in arterial phase, portal phase, and delayed phase (n).
| Group | Number of case | Arterial phase | Portal phase | Delayed phase | ||||||
| High | Heterogenous | Low | High | Heterogenous | Low | High | Heterogenous | Low | ||
| Poorly differentiated group | 24 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 19 | 0 | 4 | 20 |
| Moderately differentiated group | 31 | 29 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 24 | 0 | 4 | 27 |
| Highly differentiated group | 35 | 35 | 0 | 0∗ | 0 | 10 | 25∗ | 0 | 5 | 30∗ |
Comparison among the 3 groups.
P > .05.
Figure 2Comparison of quantitative CEUS parameters among the 3 groups. A: There were no significant differences in the peak intensity among the 3 groups. B: There were no significant differences in the enhancement time among the 3 groups. C: The TTP was highest in the highly differentiated group and was higher in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group; D: There were no significant differences in the wash-in time among the 3 groups; E: The wash-out time was highest in the highly differentiated group and was higher in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group; F: The PAT was highest in the highly differentiated group and was higher in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group; G: The ESR was lowest in the highly differentiated group and was lower in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group; H: The PIIR was lowest in the highly differentiated group and was lower in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group. Compared with the poorly differentiated group, ∗∗∗P < .001; compared with the moderately differentiated group, ∗∗∗P < .001. CEUS = contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, ESR = enhancing slope rate, PAT = peak accelerating time, PDGF = platelet-derived growth factor, PIIR = peak intensity increasing rate, TTP = the time to peak.
Figure 3Comparison of the expression of angiogenesis-related genes among the 3 groups. A: The protein expression of PDGF was lowest in the highly differentiated group and was lower in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group; B: The protein expression of VEGF was lowest in the highly differentiated group and was lower in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group; C: The protein expression of EGFR was lowest in the highly differentiated group and was lower in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group; D: The protein expression of Ang-2 was lowest in the highly differentiated group and was lower in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group. Compared with the poorly differentiated group, ∗∗∗P < .001; compared with the moderately differentiated group, ∗∗∗P < .001. EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor, PDGF = platelet-derived growth factor, VEGF = vascular endothelial growth factor.
Figure 4Comparison of MVD among the 3 groups. The MVD was lowest in the highly differentiated group and was lower in the moderately differentiated group than in the poorly differentiated group. Compared with the poorly differentiated group, ∗∗∗P < .001; Compared with the moderately differentiated group, ∗∗∗P < .001. MVD = microvessel density.
Correlation among quantitative CEUS parameters, expression of angiogenesis, and MVD r (P).
| Parameters | VEGF | PDGF | EGFR | Ang-2 | MVD |
| TTP | –0.586 (0.001) | –0.456 (0.009) | –0.589 (0.000) | –0.641 (0.000) | –0.683 (0.000) |
| Wash-out time | –0.621 (0.000) | –0.529 (0.002) | –0.669 (0.000) | –0.731 (0.000) | –0.631 (0.000) |
| PAT | –0.520 (0.004) | –0.654 (0.000) | –0.721 (0.000) | –0.538 (0.003) | –0.592 (0.000) |
| ESR | 0.625 (0.000) | 0.599 (0.000) | 0.486 (0.007) | 0.703 (0.000) | 0.487 (0.007) |
| PIIR | 0.711 (0.000) | 0.616 (0.000) | 0.656 (0.000) | 0.664 (0.000) | 0.619 (0.000) |
Ang2 = angiopoietin-2, CEUS = contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, EGFR = epidermal growth factor receptor, ESR = enhancing slope rate, MVD = microvessel density, PAT = peak accelerating time, PDGF = platelet-derived growth factor, PIIR = peak intensity increasing rate, TTP = the time to peak, VEGF = vascular endothelial growth factor.