Cargando…

Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether tumor extracellular volume fraction (fECV) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) aids in the differentiation between intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 113 patients with pathologicall...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Honda, T., Onishi, H., Fukui, H., Yano, K., Kiso, K., Nakamoto, A., Tsuboyama, T., Ota, T., Tatsumi, M., Tahara, S., Kobayashi, S., Eguchi, H., Tomiyama, N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10359704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37483497
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1214977
_version_ 1785075944965275648
author Honda, T.
Onishi, H.
Fukui, H.
Yano, K.
Kiso, K.
Nakamoto, A.
Tsuboyama, T.
Ota, T.
Tatsumi, M.
Tahara, S.
Kobayashi, S.
Eguchi, H.
Tomiyama, N.
author_facet Honda, T.
Onishi, H.
Fukui, H.
Yano, K.
Kiso, K.
Nakamoto, A.
Tsuboyama, T.
Ota, T.
Tatsumi, M.
Tahara, S.
Kobayashi, S.
Eguchi, H.
Tomiyama, N.
author_sort Honda, T.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether tumor extracellular volume fraction (fECV) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) aids in the differentiation between intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 113 patients with pathologically confirmed ICC (n = 39) or HCC (n = 74) who had undergone preoperative contrast-enhanced CT were enrolled. Enhancement values of the tumor (E(tumor)) and aorta (E(aorta)) were obtained in the precontrast and equilibrium phase CT images. fECV was calculated using the following equation: fECV [%] = E(tumor)/E(aorta) × (100 – hematocrit [%]). fECV values were compared between the ICC and HCC groups using Welch’s t-test. The diagnostic performance of fECV for differentiating ICC and HCC was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. fECV and the CT imaging features of tumors were evaluated by two radiologists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors predicting a diagnosis of ICC. RESULTS: Mean fECV was significantly higher in ICCs (43.8% ± 13.2%) than that in HCCs (31.6% ± 9.0%, p < 0.001). The area under the curve for differentiating ICC from HCC was 0.763 when the cutoff value of fECV was 41.5%. The multivariate analysis identified fECV (unit OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01–1.21; p < 0.05), peripheral rim enhancement during the arterial phase (OR: 17.0; 95% CI: 1.29–225; p < 0.05), and absence of washout pattern (OR: 235; 95% CI: 14.03–3933; p < 0.001) as independent CT features for differentiating between the two tumor types. CONCLUSIONS: A high value of fECV, peripheral rim enhancement during the arterial phase, and absence of washout pattern were independent factors in the differentiation of ICC from HCC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10359704
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103597042023-07-22 Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma Honda, T. Onishi, H. Fukui, H. Yano, K. Kiso, K. Nakamoto, A. Tsuboyama, T. Ota, T. Tatsumi, M. Tahara, S. Kobayashi, S. Eguchi, H. Tomiyama, N. Front Oncol Oncology OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether tumor extracellular volume fraction (fECV) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) aids in the differentiation between intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 113 patients with pathologically confirmed ICC (n = 39) or HCC (n = 74) who had undergone preoperative contrast-enhanced CT were enrolled. Enhancement values of the tumor (E(tumor)) and aorta (E(aorta)) were obtained in the precontrast and equilibrium phase CT images. fECV was calculated using the following equation: fECV [%] = E(tumor)/E(aorta) × (100 – hematocrit [%]). fECV values were compared between the ICC and HCC groups using Welch’s t-test. The diagnostic performance of fECV for differentiating ICC and HCC was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. fECV and the CT imaging features of tumors were evaluated by two radiologists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors predicting a diagnosis of ICC. RESULTS: Mean fECV was significantly higher in ICCs (43.8% ± 13.2%) than that in HCCs (31.6% ± 9.0%, p < 0.001). The area under the curve for differentiating ICC from HCC was 0.763 when the cutoff value of fECV was 41.5%. The multivariate analysis identified fECV (unit OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01–1.21; p < 0.05), peripheral rim enhancement during the arterial phase (OR: 17.0; 95% CI: 1.29–225; p < 0.05), and absence of washout pattern (OR: 235; 95% CI: 14.03–3933; p < 0.001) as independent CT features for differentiating between the two tumor types. CONCLUSIONS: A high value of fECV, peripheral rim enhancement during the arterial phase, and absence of washout pattern were independent factors in the differentiation of ICC from HCC. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10359704/ /pubmed/37483497 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1214977 Text en Copyright © 2023 Honda, Onishi, Fukui, Yano, Kiso, Nakamoto, Tsuboyama, Ota, Tatsumi, Tahara, Kobayashi, Eguchi and Tomiyama https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Honda, T.
Onishi, H.
Fukui, H.
Yano, K.
Kiso, K.
Nakamoto, A.
Tsuboyama, T.
Ota, T.
Tatsumi, M.
Tahara, S.
Kobayashi, S.
Eguchi, H.
Tomiyama, N.
Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
title Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
title_full Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
title_fullStr Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
title_full_unstemmed Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
title_short Extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced CT is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
title_sort extracellular volume fraction using contrast-enhanced ct is useful in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10359704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37483497
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1214977
work_keys_str_mv AT hondat extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT onishih extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT fukuih extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT yanok extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT kisok extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT nakamotoa extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT tsuboyamat extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT otat extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT tatsumim extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT taharas extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT kobayashis extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT eguchih extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma
AT tomiyaman extracellularvolumefractionusingcontrastenhancedctisusefulindifferentiatingintrahepaticcholangiocellularcarcinomafromhepatocellularcarcinoma