Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 7, 2019; 25(21): 2636-2649
Published online Jun 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i21.2636
Published online Jun 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i21.2636
Table 1 Comparison of demographic and other characteristics between the pathologic stage T2 and T1 groups, n (%)
| Characteristics | pT2, n = 39 | pT1, n = 75 | P value |
| Age, mean ± SD | 60.54 ± 11.17 | 58.32 ± 10.95 | 0.3101 |
| Gender | 0.375 | ||
| Male | 26 (66.7) | 57 (76.0) | |
| Female | 13 (33.3) | 18 (24.0) | |
| Hepatitis virus subtype | |||
| HBV | 21 (53.8) | 50 (66.7) | 0.223 |
| HCV | 15 (38.5) | 21 (28.0) | 0.292 |
| HBV and HCV | 3 (7.7) | 3 (4.0) | 0.385 |
| Tumor marker | |||
| AFP | 415.3 ± 1536.1 | 812.3 ± 5922.0 | 0.5683 |
| CA-19-9 | 116.2 ± 606.2 | 14.1 ± 15.6 | 0.2998 |
| Interval between the dates of imaging and surgery, mean ± SD | 17.69 ± 30.80 | 18.09 ± 20.58 | 0.9419 |
| METAVIR score of liver fibrosis | 0.7852 | ||
| F0-F3 | 28 (71.79) | 52 (69.33) | |
| F4 | 11 (28.21) | 23 (30.67) | |
Table 2 Imaging characteristics compared between the pathologic stage T2 group and T1 group, n (%)
| Characteristics | pT2, n = 39 | pT1, n = 75 | P value |
| T2 hyperintensity | 37 (94.9) | 68 (90.7) | 0.716 |
| T1 hypointensity | 35 (89.7) | 69 (92.0) | 0.733 |
| Arterial enhancement | 38 (97.4) | 70 (93.3) | 0.662 |
| Corona enhancement | 14 (35.9) | 13 (17.3) | 0.037 |
| Washout appearance | 36 (92.3) | 69 (92.0) | 1.000 |
| Capsular appearance | 14 (35.9) | 38 (50.7) | 0.167 |
| Hypointensity of tumor in the HB phase | 37 (94.9) | 74 (98.7) | 0.269 |
| Peritumoral hypointensity in the HB phase | 16 (41.0) | 18 (24.0) | 0.084 |
| Hypointense-rim in the HB phase | 5 (12.8) | 21 (28.0) | 0.099 |
| Intratumoral fat | 8 (20.5) | 18 (24.0) | 0.815 |
| Hyperintensity on DWI | 39 (100.0) | 72 (96.0) | 0.550 |
| Hypointensity on ADC map | 16 (41.0) | 32 (42.7) | 1.000 |
| Mosaic architecture | 27 (69.2) | 48 (64.0) | 0.679 |
| Margin type | 0.503 | ||
| Smooth | 27 (69.2) | 57 (76.0) | |
| Irregular | 12 (30.8) | 18 (24.0) | |
| AJCC v.7 | 39 (100.0) | 75 (100.0) | |
| AJCC v.8 | 0.005 | ||
| cT1a (≤ 2 cm) | 3 (7.7) | 24 (32.0) | |
| cT1b (> 2 cm) | 36 (92.3) | 51 (68.0) |
Table 3 The odds ratios for imaging features favoring a diagnosis of pathologic stage T2 over pT1
| Features | Crude OR | 95%CI | P value |
| T2 hyperintensity | 1.904 | (0.376-9.639) | 0.436 |
| T1 hypointensity | 0.761 | (0.201-2.874) | 0.687 |
| Arterial enhancement | 2.714 | (0.306-24.085) | 0.370 |
| Corona enhancement | 2.671 | (1.101-6.480) | 0.030 |
| Washout appearance | 1.043 | (0.246-4.419) | 0.954 |
| Capsular appearance | 0.545 | (0.246-1.208) | 0.135 |
| Hypointensity of tumor in the HB phase | 0.250 | (0.022-2.847) | 0.264 |
| Peritumoral hypointensity in HB phase | 2.203 | (0.961-5.049) | 0.062 |
| Hypointense-rim in the HB phase | 0.378 | (0.130-1.098) | 0.074 |
| Intratumoral fat | 0.817 | (0.319-2.093) | 0.674 |
| Mosaic architecture | 1.266 | (0.553-2.895) | 0.577 |
| Hyperintensity on DWI | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Hypointensity ADC map | 0.935 | (0.426-2.050) | 0.866 |
| Tumor margin | |||
| Smooth (baseline) | |||
| Non-smooth | 1.407 | (0.594-3.333) | 0.437 |
| AJCC v.8 | |||
| cT1a (baseline) | 1.00 | Reference | |
| cT1b | 6.727 | (1.483-30.517) | 0.014 |
Table 4 Logistic regression estimates of odds ratios for pathologic stage T2 hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with solitary tumor on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging
| Combinations of aggressive features | Number of pT2 patients | OR (95%CI) |
| A = 0 and B = 0 and C = 0 | 4 | Reference |
| Only A or Only B or Only C | 10 | 1.037 (0.285-3.766) |
| A + B or B + C or A + C or A + B + C | 25 | 6.250 (1.788-21.845) |
- Citation: Chou YC, Lao IH, Hsieh PL, Su YY, Mak CW, Sun DP, Sheu MJ, Kuo HT, Chen TJ, Ho CH, Kuo YT. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging can predict the pathologic stage of solitary hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(21): 2636-2649
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v25/i21/2636.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i21.2636
