» Articles » PMID: 39607454

Non-radiomics Imaging (US-CEUS) Features and Clinical Text Features: Correlation with Microvascular Invasion and Tumor Grading in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2024 Nov 28
PMID 39607454
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To predict microvascular invasion (MVI) status and tumor grading of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by evaluating preoperative non-radiomics ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (US-CEUS) features and determine the influences of MVI/tumor grading on the category of CEUS LI-RADS for HCC.

Methods: A total of 506 HCC patients who underwent preoperative US-CEUS examinations from 8 hospitals between July 2020 and June 2023 were enrolled. According to the MVI status, all the patients were classified, and HCC differentiation was assessed by using Edmondson-Steiner (ES) grading: MVI-negative (M0) and low-grade ES (GI/II) (MN-L, n = 297) and MVI-positive (M1/M2) and/or high-grade ES (GIII/IV) (MP-H, n = 209). Stratified analysis was performed based on fibrosis stage and tumor size.

Results: The results proved that MN-L HCC was more frequently classified into the LR-5 category (p = 0.034), while MP-H HCC was more frequently classified into the LR-TIV (p = 0.010). The heterogeneously arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) is significantly correlated with MVI(+)/high grade-ES (p = 0.003). Compared with MN-L HCC, the onset of washout was earlier, washout rate was higher, and tumor-invasion border was larger (all p < 0.01) in MP-H HCC. In addition, fibrosis stage and tumor size significantly influenced the onset of washout and washout rate of HCC (all p < 0.01). The tumor-invasion border was only positively correlated with tumor size (p < 0.001) rather than fibrosis stage (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: MVI status and tumor grading influence the classification of LR-5 and LR-TIV. Heterogeneous APHE, higher washout rate, earlier onset of washout (≤65 s), larger tumor-invasion border (≥3 mm) and higher alpha fetoprotein level indicate the presence of MVI and/or high-grade ES.

References
1.
Villanueva A . Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(15):1450-1462. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1713263. View

2.
Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J . Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2018; 391(10127):1301-1314. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30010-2. View

3.
Su G, Altayar O, OShea R, Shah R, Estfan B, Wenzell C . AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2022; 162(3):920-934. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.276. View

4.
Li L, Zhang J, Liu X, Li X, Jiao B, Kang T . Clinical outcomes of radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 27(1):51-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06947.x. View

5.
Imamura H, Matsuyama Y, Tanaka E, Ohkubo T, Hasegawa K, Miyagawa S . Risk factors contributing to early and late phase intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. J Hepatol. 2003; 38(2):200-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8278(02)00360-4. View