4.7 Article

Presence of a Hypovascular Hepatic Nodule Showing Hypointensity on Hepatocyte-Phase Image Is a Risk Factor for Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 293-297

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24164

关键词

magnetic resonance imaging; gadoxetic acid; hepatocyte phase; hepatocellular carcinoma; risk factors

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23591983, 23591984] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo determine whether the presence of a hypovascular nodule in the liver showing hypointensity on hepatocyte-phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) is a risk factor for hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease. Materials and MethodsForty-one patients with pathologically confirmed hypervascular HCC and 41 age- and gender-matched controls were retrospectively selected. These patients had undergone EOB-MRI at least twice: the latest EOB-MRI and EOB-MRI performed more than 6 months earlier. History of hypervascular HCC, presence of a hypointense hypovascular nodule in previous hepatocyte-phase MR images, percent prothrombin time, platelet count, serum levels of albumin, total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, -fetoprotein, and protein induced by vitamin K absence-II (PIVKA-II) were variables evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. ResultsMultivariate analysis revealed that serum albumin level (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.19 [0.06-0.57]; P = 0.0024), history of hypervascular HCC (8.62 [2.71-32.8]; P = 0.0001), and presence of a hypointense hypovascular nodule (4.18 [1.18-17.2]; P = 0.0256) were significant risk factors for hypervascular HCC. ConclusionPatients with chronic liver disease showing a hypointense hypovascular nodule in the liver on hepatocyte-phase EOB-MRI have a high risk of HCC development. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:293-297. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据