The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Enhancement in the Differential Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Combined Hepatocellular Cholangiocarinoma

Lu, Lun; Zhang, ChenCai; Yu, Xian; Zhang, Ling; Feng, YaYuan; Wu, YuXian; Xia, JinJu; Chen, Xue; Zhang, RuiPing; Zhang, Juan; Jia, Ningyang; Zhang, SiSi

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4691172

Journal of Oncology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4691172 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4691172

The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Enhancement in the Differential Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Combined Hepatocellular Cholangiocarinoma

Lun Lu,¹ChenCai Zhang,²Xian Yu,³Ling Zhang,²YaYuan Feng,¹YuXian Wu,¹JinJu Xia,¹Xue Chen,¹RuiPing Zhang,¹Juan Zhang,¹Ningyang Jia,¹and SiSi Zhang¹

Academic Editor: Alessandro Granito

Received18 Apr 2022

Accepted22 Aug 2022

Published15 Sept 2022

Abstract

Background. The distinction between combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) before the operation has an important clinical significance for optimizing the treatment plan and predicting the prognosis of patients. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been widely used in the preoperative diagnosis and evaluation of primary liver malignant tumors. Purpose. The aim is to study the value of preoperative clinical data and enhanced MRI in the differential diagnosis of HCC and cHCC-CC and obtain independent risk factors for predicting cHCC-CC. Study type. Retrospective. Population. The clinical and imaging data of 157 HCC and 59 cHCC-CC patients confirmed by pathology were collected. Field Strength/Sequence. 1.5T; cross-sectional T1WI (gradient double echo sequence); cross-sectional T2WI (fast spin echo sequence, fat suppression); enhancement (3D LAVA technology). Assessment. The differences between the HCC and cHCC-CC patients were compared. Statistic Tests. Using the t-test, chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis, was considered statistically significant. Result. 1. CHCC-CC was more likely to show multiple lesions than HCC (28.81% vs. 10.83%, ) and more prone to microvascular invasion (MVI) (36.31% vs. 61.02%, ). However, HCC had a higher incidence of liver cirrhosis than cHCC-CC (50.85% vs. 72.61%, ). 2. The incidence of nonsmooth margin was higher in the cHCC-CC group (84.75% vs. 52.23%, ). The incidence of peritumor enhancement in the arterial phase was higher in the cHCC-CC group (11.46% vs. 62.71%, ) 3. According to the multivariate analysis, arterial peritumor enhancement (OR = 8.833,95%CI:4.033,19.346, ) was an independent risk factor for cHCC-CC ()). It had high sensitivity (62.71%) and specificity (88.54%) in the diagnosis of cHCC-CC. Date Conclusions. Liver cirrhosis and the imaging findings of GD-DTPA-enhanced MRI are helpful for the differential diagnosis of HCC and cHCC-CC. In addition, the imaging sign of peritumoral enhancement in the arterial phase has high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of cHCC-CC.

1. Introduction

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) is a rare primary liver malignant tumor, which was first reported by Allen and Lisa [1], accounting for about 0.4–14.2% of primary liver carcinomas (PLCs) [2, 3]. The histopathological diagnosis of cHCC-CC requires the presence of both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC), with transition zones of intermediate morphology. Some studies have shown that cHCC-CC has the biological behavior of both HCC and ICC and the prognosis is poor [4]. For many tumors that are prone to recurrence, an early and accurate diagnosis is of great significance for the selection of clinical treatment options [5, 6]. As an effective treatment for HCC [7], there is no consistent conclusion on the therapeutic effect of liver transplantation in cHCC-CC, though radical resection and liver transplantation are the main surgical treatments for HCC and cHCC-CC. Moreover, most studies believe that liver transplantation in patients with cHCC-CC does not improve the survival rate of these patients [8, 9].

However, if the HCC component of cHCC-CC and the CC component of cHCC-CC are treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), percutaneous ethanol injections (PEI), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and other modalities before surgery, respectively, the HCC component of cHCC-CC and the CCA component of cHCC-CC can be treated by chemoembolization or transarterial radioembolization. Burden benefits cHCC-CC patients before liver resection or transplantation [10]. As a consequence, the distinction between cHCC-CC and HCC before the operation has an important clinical significance for optimizing the treatment plan and predicting the prognosis of patients.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been widely used in the preoperative diagnosis and evaluation of primary liver malignant tumors [11–15]. The current study demonstrated the strong diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018 for predicting primary hepatic malignancy [16] .This study intends to evaluate the preoperative clinical data and GD-DTPA-enhanced MRI features (based on the morphological and enhanced features defined by LI-RADS) and to study their value in the differential diagnosis of HCC and cHCC-CC, as well as to find independent risk factors for predicting cHCC-CC, providing more useful information for the differential diagnosis of the two.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

This study was a retrospective study, which was approved by our hospital with an exemption of informed consent. In addition, the enhanced MRI examination has been widely used in clinics to exempt patients from informed consent.

A retrospective collection of 366 cases of liver tumors from June 2010 to October 2021 in our hospital who underwent enhanced MRI scans was collected (HCC cases from January 2014 to October 2021 were selected for inclusion in the study), and 279 cases of HCC were obtained, 87 cases of cHCC-CC. The selection criteria were as follows: 1. The patients who aged 18–80 years old. 2. MRI suggested that a liver tumor of ≥1 cm was found. 3. Patients who underwent contrast-enhanced MRIs and were fully documented. 4. Surgical resection of the liver tumor was completed. 5. Postoperative pathology confirmed HCC or cHCC-CC. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1. The patients whose age <18 years old or >80 years old. 2. The image quality of the tumor MRI scan was poor or the phase was not complete. 3. Those who did not undergo liver surgery. 4. Postoperative pathology revealed intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or other liver tumors. 5. Patients underwent contrast-enhanced MR examination after TACE or radiotherapy (Figure 1). After screening, 157 cases of HCC and 59 cases of cHCC-CC were finally included in the study.

2.2. MRI Examination and Evaluation

MR scanning parameters: GE optima MR360 was adopted with a field strength of 1.5T and an 8-channel abdominal surface coil. The patients fasted for 4 hours before scanning, and the patients were trained to breathe before scanning. The patients lay back on the inspection bed with their feet entering first. The 0.1 mmoL/Kg of gadolinium meglumine (GD-DTPA) was injected into the median cubital vein through a high-pressure injector with a flow rate of 2.0 ml/s. The enhanced scanning time was 22–28 s in the arterial phase, 50–70 s in the portal phase, and 90 –120 s in the delayed phase after injection of the contrast agent. Precontrast scan: cross-sectional T1WI: gradient double echo sequence was adopted, holding breath at the end of breath, with TR/TE = 190/(4.3,2.1) ms, slice thickness = 6 mm, layer interval = 2 mm, matrix = 256 × 160, and FOV = 44 × 40 cm. DWI：b = 600 sec/mm², cross-sectional T2WI: fast spin echo sequence, fat suppression, and respiratory gating were conducted, with TR/TE = 6667/85 ms, layer thickness = 6 mm, layer interval = 2 mm, matrix = 320 × 224, and FOV = 44 × 40 cm. The breath-holding scan was applied with TR/TE = 3000/74 ms, a layer thickness of 8 mm, the layer interval of 2 mm, matrix = 128 × 160, and FOV = 44 × 40 cm. Enhancement: cross-section adopted 3D LAVA technology, with TR/TE = 3.6/1.7 ms, layer thickness/layer spacing = 5/−2.5 mm, matrix: 256 × 192, and FOV = 44 × 40 cm.

Two radiologists engaged in abdominal imaging diagnosis for more than 10 years analyzed the MR appearance of all cases on the PACS system, including lesion size, boundary, capsule, smooth edge, arterial phase peritumoral enhancement, and so on. They would reach an agreement through discussion when in doubt.

The tumor size was measured by selecting the length and diameter of the largest plane according to the liver imaging reporting and data system 2018 standard [17], including the mass capsule, when the mass was shown most clearly in the MRI-enhanced portal phase images. Besides, the tumor edge was divided into smooth edges (nodular tumors with smooth edges) and nonsmooth edges (budding processes on cross-sectional and coronal images) [18]. The capsule was defined as the enhancement degree of the smooth edge of the tumor in the portal vein or delayed phase was higher than that of the mass, and pathologically, it was mainly fibrous components [19, 20]. The peritumoral enhancement in the arterial phase was defined as a crescent or polygonal enhancement area outside the edge of the tumor in the arterial phase. The degree of overall or partial enhancement was higher than that of the hepatic parenchyma. In addition, there was an extensive contact with the edge of the tumor, and the signal in the delayed phase was similar to that of the normal hepatic parenchyma [21]. Arterial rim enhancement is defined as a ring-shaped enhancement at the edge of the arterial mass.

2.3. Histopathological Analysis

The postoperative tumor tissues were standardized and stained with hematoxylin-eosin staining by an experienced pathologist (engaged in pathological diagnosis of liver cancer for 20 years). If necessary, immunohistochemical staining was performed. All pathological sections were reviewed according to the 2019 WHO classification, and the classification and diagnosis of HCC and cHCC-CC were performed [22]. That is, cHCC-CC is a mixed area of HCC and CC in tumor cells and there is a transitional area between the two types at the same time. The growth pattern of cancer focus included pericancerous infiltration, capsule formation, microvascular invasion (MVI), and satellite nodules, etc. Liver cirrhosis showed extensive fibrosis of liver tissues with pseudolobule formation.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

This study was divided into two groups with the following statistical methods:

Basic table: continuous variables (measurement data): the variables were consistent with normal distribution, using t-test and were presented as “mean + sd”; nonnormal distribution adopted a nonparametric test (Kruskal test) and was presented as “median (1/4–3/4IQR)”; classified variables (count/grade data) adopted the chi-square or Fisher test and were presented as “count (percentage)”.

Univariate and multivariate analysis: Logistic regression: SPSS19.0 statistical software package, and the chi-square test and the independent sample t-test were used for statistical analysis. At the same time, combined with clinical significance, the parameters were analyzed by a single multifactor logistic regression analysis, and the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each parameter were calculated. The results of multifactor analysis and statistically significant indicators were analyzed comprehensively. In addition, the sensitivity and specificity under different combinations were calculated. (α = 0.05, bilateral test).

3. Results

3.1. Patients

157 cases of HCC met the inclusion criteria, with an average age of 55.80 ± 10.44 and the male to female ratio was 134 : 23; 59 cases of cHCC-CC met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 52.80 ± 10.23, and the male to female ratio was 48 : 11. There was no significant difference in onset age and gender ratio between the two groups (, 0.472). There was no significant difference in tumor diameter (defined by 5 cm), AFP, HBsAg, and HBeAg between HCC and cHCC-CC cases (, 0.407, 0.589, and 0.159), respectively.

The proportion of multiple lesions in HCC is 10.83%. However, that of cHCC-CC was 28.81%. The probability of HCC complicated with liver cirrhosis was 72.61% and the probability of cHCC-CC was 50.85%. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (, 0.003 Table 1). At the same time, cHCC-CC is more prone to MVI than HCC manifestations(36.31% vs. 61.02%, Table 1).

3.2. Comparison of MRI Imaging Features

There were significant differences in arterial peritumor enhancement and tumor margin between the HCC and cHCC-CC groups (). Besides, the incidence of nonsmooth margin in the cHCC-CC group was higher than that in the HCC group (84.75% vs. 52.23%, ). Moreover, the HCC group had a lower incidence of peritumor enhancement in the arterial phase (11.46% vs. 62.71%, ) The capsular appearance rates of the two groups on MRI were 40/157 (25.48%) and 8/59 (13.56%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (, Table 1) (Figures 2–4).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3.3. Risk Factor Analysis

According to multivariate analysis, arterial peritumor enhancement (OR = 8.833,95%CI:4.033,19.346, ) was an independent risk factor for cHCC-CC () (Table 2). It had high sensitivity (62.71%) and specificity (88.54%) in the diagnosis of cHCC-CC (Table 3).

4. Discussion

cHCC-CC is a rare primary liver carcinoma. In general, the clinical and imaging manifestations of the disease are also different due to the difference in the volume of HCC cells and ICC cells in the tumor [23]. As a consequence, there is a high misdiagnosis rate in practical clinical work. This study mainly discusses the value of preoperative clinical data and MRI-enhanced imaging signs in the differential diagnosis of HCC and cHCC-CC.

It was found that there was no statistical significance in other aspects except the ratio of single focus to multiple lesions and the probability of mass complications with liver cirrhosis through the study of the clinical date of the two groups of patients. Lin et al. [24] found that the incidence of cHCC-CC in men is higher. However, in this study, these two types of liver cancer are not statistically significant in terms of gender and age. The author believes that it is related to the small number of cases collected. Clinical manifestations of HCC and cHCC-CC are not typical, and may only show skin itching, weight loss, and other symptoms [25]. Different patients have different sensitivity and attention to the changes in the body. As a consequence, patients come to see a doctor at different stages of the disease, so the difference between the two sizes is not statistically significant. Studies have shown that both HBsAg and HBeAg are closely related to the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma [26, 27]. AFP is mainly synthesized in the fetal liver, decreases gradually after birth and approaches the adult level in about a week, which is of great significance for the diagnosis of HCC [28]. However, it is usually related to the size of the tumor, especially when the tumor is smaller, the proportion of normal value can reach up to 35%–40% [29]. At the same time, some other lesions in the liver, such as hepatoblastoma, will also increase [30]. Because most of the cases collected in this study were smaller than 5 cm in diameter, and cHCC-CC contained both hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma, there was no significant difference in AFP, HBsAg, and HBeAg between them. Most scholars believe that it originated from hepatic progenitor cells, though there are different opinions on the origin of cHCC-CC [2, 31]. Hepatic progenitor cells are a group of undifferentiated cells with hepatocyte function in the normal human liver, which are mainly distributed in the Hering duct of the portal vein and bile canaliculi [32]. On the other hand, the Hering duct constructs the relationship between the biliary system and the intralobular anatomy and microscopic system of the liver. Once cHCC-CC occurs, it is easy to have multiple lesions. At the same time, although the blood supply of cHCC-CC is less than that of HCC, its ability to invade large hepatic vessels, such as the portal vein and the hepatic vein, is similar to that of HCC. Besides, it is more likely to have a metastasis of peripheral lymph nodes [33]. As a consequence, the probability of multiple lesions in cHCC-CC is significantly higher than that in HCC, and the difference is statistically significant.

Cirrhosis, defined pathologically as multiple regenerative nodules surrounded by fibrous tissue, is the final evolutionary stage of all chronic progressive liver diseases [34], In the process of developing liver cirrhosis, due to the development of fibrous and regenerative tissues, many liver space-occupying lesions will change in shape and enhancement mode on the basis of the liver deformation, which brings difficulties in diagnosis [35]. Cirrhosis is the strongest risk factor for HCC [36].Studies have shown that up to 85%–90% of hepatocellular carcinoma patients have liver cirrhosis [37]. Although cHCC-CC contains liver cancer cells, liver cancer cells are only one of its components. As a consequence, the probability of cHCC-CC patients with liver cirrhosis is low and the difference between the two is statistically significant.

MRI-enhanced scanning is widely used in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of benign and malignant liver lesions and the evaluation of liver function with the advantages of nonradiation and multimode imaging [38, 39]. It was found that there was a significant difference in tumor margin and peritumoral enhancement between the HCC and cHCC-CC groups. The analysis showed that the focus of HCC was mainly composed of hepatocellular carcinoma cells with few fibrous components. However, the fibrous tissue contained in cHCC-CC cholangiocarcinoma components would pull the mass in the process of growth and lead to lobular changes, so sometimes it could be shown as a budding protuberance on imaging [15]. Moreover, because cHCC-CC contains both HCC and ICC, HCC is more prone to hematogenous metastasis, and ICC is more likely to have lymph node metastasis. The invasiveness is stronger [33, 40], and the probability of a rough edge on the image is greater. The difference between the two is statistically significant. Studies have shown that [41, 42]. Peritumoral enhancement is an important index for predicting microvascular infiltration. It is generally believed that the main reason for this phenomenon is that the normal liver tissue is mainly supplied by the portal vein, and the tumor thrombus caused by the microvascular infiltration will lead to obstruction of the portal vein branches around the mass. As a result, the surrounding arteries are compensated [43]. As a consequence, when the enhanced scan is performed, the area can be obviously enhanced in the arterial phase. The analysis of the pathological results of the two groups showed that the microvascular infiltration ability of the cHCC-CC group was higher than that of the HCC group. Therefore, the cHCC-CC group was more likely to have a peritumoral enhancement in the arterial phase than the HCC group. The difference is statistically significant. The “Capsule sign” is one of the main signs of LI-RADS. It is mainly an imaging manifestation of collagen fibers produced by liver cancer cells, hepatocytes, and various factors activating stellate cells [19]. This sign has good heterogeneity in the diagnosis of HCC [44] and can better distinguish HCC from benign liver lesions or other non-HCC liver malignant lesions. The hepatoma cell components contained in cHCC-CC can also activate some stellate cells to produce collagen fibers, showing a “capsule sign” in the image. As a consequence, there is no significant difference between the two.

Through the multivariate analysis of the collected data, it was found that liver cirrhosis and arterial peritumor enhancement were independent risk factors for predicting cHCC-CC and the imaging feature of arterial peritumor enhancement had high sensitivity (62.71%) and specificity (88.54%) for the diagnosis of cHCC-CCA. It has certain hints for the diagnosis of cHCC-CC.

The main shortcomings of this study are as follows: 1. The number of cases was relatively small, which might have cause certain errors. 2. Because the imaging data provided by MRI plain scan was limited, the display of some lesions was poor, and the blood supply of lesions could not be well observed. As a consequence, this study did not choose the MRI plain scan data for analysis. 3. This study did not make a more detailed pathological classification of cHCC-CC. In the future, the author will conduct a more detailed study on these deficiencies.

5. Conclusions

Generally speaking, it can be concluded that by combining the two data, we can make a better differential diagnosis between HCC and cHCC-CC before operation according to the analysis of the preoperative clinical features and the imaging findings of the contrast-enhanced MRI. Compared with cHCC-CC, HCC is more likely to be complicated by liver cirrhosis. However, the incidence of multiple lesions with peritumoral enhancement in the arterial phase and rough margin is lower. Liver cirrhosis and arterial peritumoral enhancement are independent risk factors for predicting cHCC-CC. Arterial peritumoral enhancement has high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of cHCC-CC.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Disclosure

A previous version of this manuscript was published as a preprint [45].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The manuscript was published as a preprint based on the link: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1558017/v1. This study received funding by the Shanghai clinical project (SHDC2020CR1029B), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong province (2018A030313951) and sponsored by the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (cstc2018jxjl130081).

References

R. A. Allen and J. R. Lisa, “Combined liver cell and bile duct carcinoma,” American Journal Of Pathology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 647–655, 1949 Jul.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Q. Wang, Y. C. Zheng, and J. Du, “Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: controversies to be addressed,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 22, no. 18, pp. 4459–4465, 2016 May 14.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. M. Cong and M. C. Wu, “New insights into molecular diagnostic pathology of primary liver cancer: advances and challenges,” Cancer Letters, vol. 368, no. 1, pp. 14–19, 2015 Nov 1.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Y. Yao, L. Xiao, N. M. Bass, R. Kerlan, N. L. Ascher, and J. P. Roberts, “Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: validation of the UCSF-expanded criteria based on preoperative imaging,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 2587–2596, 2007 Nov.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Facciorusso, F. Bellanti, R. Villani et al., “Transarterial chemoembolization vs. bland embolization in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials,” United European Gastroenterol J, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 511–518, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Renzulli, G. Peta, F. Vasuri et al., “Standardization of conventional chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma,” Annals of Hepatology, vol. 22, Article ID 100278, 2021 May-Jun.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. B. Li, X. Y. Si, S. J. Wang, and Y. M. Zhou, “Long-term outcomes of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma after hepatectomy or liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases International, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 12–18, 2019 Feb.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Magistri, G. Tarantino, V. Serra, C. Guidetti, R. Ballarin, and F. Di Benedetto, “Liver transplantation and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: feasibility and outcomes,” Digestive and Liver Disease, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 467–470, 2017 May.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. T. Groeschl, K. K. Turaga, and T. C. Gamblin, “Transplantation versus resection for patients with combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 608–612, 2013 May.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Renzulli, D. Ramai, J. Singh et al., “Locoregional treatments in cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma,” Cancers, vol. 13, no. 13, p. 3336, 2021 Jul 2.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. H. Kim, S. H. Choi, J. H. Byun et al., “Arterial subtraction images of gadoxetate-enhanced MRI improve diagnosis of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 534–542, 2019 Sep.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Rimola, A. Forner, V. Sapena et al., “Performance of gadoxetic acid MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging for the diagnosis of early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma,” European Radiology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 186–194, 2020 Jan.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Renzulli, M. Biselli, S. Brocchi et al., “New hallmark of hepatocellular carcinoma, early hepatocellular carcinoma and high-grade dysplastic nodules on Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI in patients with cirrhosis: a new diagnostic algorithm,” Gut, vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 1674–1682, 2018 Sep.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. O. De Campos, R. C. Semelka, R. M. Azevedo et al., “Combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma: report of MR appearance in eleven patients,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1139–1147, 2012 Nov.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Hwang, Y. K. Kim, M. J. Park et al., “Differentiating combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma from mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 881–889, 2012 Oct.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. R. Ludwig, T. J. Fraum, R. Cannella et al., “Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) versus non-HCC: accuracy and reliability of liver imaging reporting and data system v2018,” Abdom Radiol (NY), vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2116–2132, 2019 Jun.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
American College of Rdiology, “CT/MR liver imaging reporting and date system version2018 [EB/OL],” 2018, https://www.acr.org/Clinical%20Resources/Reporting-and-Date-S%20ystems/LI-RADS/CT-MRI-LIRADS-v2018.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Ariizumi, K. Kitagawa, Y. Kotera et al., “A non-smooth tumor margin in the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging predicts microscopic portal vein invasion, intrahepatic metastasis, and early recurrence after hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 575–585, 2011 Jul.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Y. Choi, J. M. Lee, and C. B. Sirlin, “CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: part II. Extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features,” Radiology, vol. 273, no. 1, pp. 30–50, 2014 Oct.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ishizaki, K. Ashida, T. Higashi et al., “The formation of capsule and septum in human hepatocellular carcinoma,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 438, no. 6, pp. 574–580, 2001 Jun.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Willatt, H. K. Hussain, S. Adusumilli, and J. A. Marrero, “MR Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: challenges and controversies,” Radiology, vol. 247, no. 2, pp. 311–330, 2008 May.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. D. Nagtegaal, R. D. Odze, D. Klimstra et al., “The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system,” Histopathology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 182–188, 2020 Jan.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Sagrini, M. Iavarone, F. Stefanini et al., “Imaging of combined hepatocellular‐cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis and risk of false diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma,” United European Gas-troenterol J, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. W. Lin, T. C. Wu, H. Y. Lin et al., “Clinical features and outcomes of combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma versus hepatocellular carcinoma versus cholangiocarcinoma after surgical resection: a propensity score matching analysis,” BMC Gastroenterology, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 20, 2021 Jan 7.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. H. Lee, S. Y. Hsieh, C. J. Chang, and Y. J. Lin, “Comparison of clinical characteristics of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma and other primary liver cancers,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 122–127, 2013 Jan.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Loomba, J. Liu, H. I. Yang et al., “Synergistic effects of family history of hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B virus infection on risk for incident hepatocellular carcinoma,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1636–1645.e3, 2013 Dec.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Fan, M. Li, Y. Gan et al., “A simple AGED score for risk classification of primary liver cancer: development and validation with long-term prospective HBsAg-positive cohorts in Qidong, China,” Gut, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 948-949, 2019 May.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. L. Tyson, Z. Duan, J. R. Kramer, J. A. Davila, P. A. Richardson, and H. B. El-Serag, “Level of α-fetoprotein predicts mortality among patients with hepatitis C-related hepatocellular carcinoma,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 989–994, 2011 Nov.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Q. Si, X. Q. Wang, G. Fan et al., “Value of AFP and PIVKA-II in diagnosis of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma and prediction of vascular invasion and tumor differentiation,” Infectious Agents and Cancer, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 70, 2020 Nov 23.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang, T. Wang, K. H. Zhang, S. H. Chen, Y. T. He, and Y. Q. Wang, “Simple clinical metrics enhance AFP to effectively identify cirrhotic patients with complicating hepatocellular carcinoma at various AFP levels,” Frontiers Oncology, vol. 9, p. 1478, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Mihara, J. Akiba, S. Ogasawara et al., “Malic enzyme 1 is a potential marker of combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma, subtype with stem-cell features, intermediate-cell type,” Hepatology Research, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1066–1075, 2019 Sep.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Strain, H. A. Crosby, S. Nijjar, D. A. Kelly, and S. G. Hubscher, “Human liver-derived stem cells,” Seminars in Liver Disease, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 373–384, 2003 Nov.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Xu, P. Yang, W. Liang et al., “A radiomics approach based on support vector machine using MR images for preoperative lymph node status evaluation in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,” Theranostics, vol. 9, no. 18, pp. 5374–5385, 2019 Jul 9.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Vilgrain, M. Lagadec, and M. Ronot, “Pitfalls in liver imaging,” Radiology, vol. 278, no. 1, pp. 34–51, 2016 Jan.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Renzulli, N. Brandi, G. Argalia et al., “Morphological, dynamic and functional characteristics of liver pseudolesions and benign lesions,” Radiologia Medica, La, vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 129–144, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. N. Ioannou, M. F. Splan, N. S. Weiss, G. B. McDonald, L. Beretta, and S. P. Lee, “Incidence and predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 938–945, 2007 Aug.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Forner, M. Reig, and J. Bruix, “Hepatocellular carcinoma,” The Lancet, vol. 391, no. 10127, pp. 1301–1314, 2018 Mar 31.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Kierans, S. K. Kang, and A. B. Rosenkrantz, “The diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for detection of small hepatocellular carcinoma measuring up to 2 cm: a meta-analysis,” Radiology, vol. 278, no. 1, pp. 82–94, 2016 Jan.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhao, M. Huang, Q. Zhu, T. Wang, and Q. Liu, “The relationship between liver function and liver parenchymal contrast enhancement on Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR imaging in the hepatocyte phase,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 768–773, 2015 Jul.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Wang, X. Yang, H. Tang et al., “Integrated nomograms to predict overall survival and recurrence-free survival in patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC) after liver resection,” Aging (Albany NY), vol. 12, no. 15, pp. 15334–15358, 2020 Aug 13.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Renzulli, S. Brocchi, A. Cucchetti et al., “Can current preoperative imaging Be used to detect microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma?” Radiology, vol. 279, no. 2, pp. 432–442, 2016 May.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lee, S. H. Kim, J. E. Lee, D. H. Sinn, and C. K. Park, “Preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for predicting microvascular invasion in patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 526–534, 2017 Sep.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Nitta, M. A. Allard, M. Sebagh et al., “Prognostic value and prediction of extratumoral microvascular invasion for hepatocellular carcinoma,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 2568–2576, 2019 Aug.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Kim, J. M. Lee, C. I. Shin et al., “Differentiation of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging,” European Radiology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1808–1817, 2016 Jun.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Lu, C. C. Zhang, and Y. Xian, “The value of MRI enhancement in the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarinoma,” 2022, https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1558017/v1_covered.pdf?c=1659960862.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Lun Lu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies