• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    R2 * value derived from multi-echo Dixon technique can aid discrimination between benign and malignant focal liver lesions

    2021-04-17 06:55:16GuangZiShiHongChenWeiKeZengMingGaoMengZhuWangHuiTingZhangJunShen
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2021年12期

    Guang-Zi Shi, Hong Chen, Wei-Ke Zeng, Ming Gao, Meng-Zhu Wang, Hui-Ting Zhang, Jun Shen

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND R2 * estimation reflects the paramagnetism of the tumor tissue, which may be used to differentiate between benign and malignant liver lesions when contrast agents are contraindicated.

    AIM To investigate whether R2 * derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging can aid differentiating benign from malignant focal liver lesions (FLLs) and the impact of 2 D region of interest (2 D-ROI) and volume of interest (VOI) on the outcomes.

    METHODS We retrospectively enrolled 73 patients with 108 benign or malignant FLLs. All patients underwent conventional abdominal magnetic resonance imaging and multi-echo Dixon imaging. Two radiologists independently measured the mean R2 * values of lesions using 2 D-ROI and VOI approaches. The Bland–Altman plot was used to determine the interobserver agreement between R2 * measurements.Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the reliability between the two readers. Mean R2 * values were compared between benign and malignant FFLs using the nonparametric Mann–Whitney test. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the diagnostic performance of R2 * in differentiation between benign and malignant FFLs. We compared the diagnostic performance of R2 * measured by 2 D-ROI and VOI approaches.

    RESULTS This study included 30 benign and 78 malignant FLLs. The interobserver reproducibility of R2 * measurements was excellent for the 2 D-ROI (ICC = 0 .994 )and VOI (ICC = 0 .998 ) methods. Bland–Altman analysis also demonstrated excellent agreement. Mean R2 * was significantly higher for malignant than benign FFLs as measured by 2 D-ROI (P < 0 .001 ) and VOI (P < 0 .001 ). The area under the curve (AUC) of R2 * measured by 2 D-ROI was 0 .884 at a cut-off of 25 .2 /s, with a sensitivity of 84 .6 % and specificity of 80 .0 % for differentiating benign from malignant FFLs. R2 * measured by VOI yielded an AUC of 0 .875 at a cut-off of 26 .7 /s in distinguishing benign from malignant FFLs, with a sensitivity of 85 .9 %and specificity of 76 .7 %. The AUCs of R2 * were not significantly different between the 2 D-ROI and VOI methods.

    CONCLUSION R2 * derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging whether by 2 D-ROI or VOI can aid in differentiation between benign and malignant FLLs.

    Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.

    Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4 .0 )license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially,and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: htt p://creativecommons.org/License s/by-nc/4 .0 /

    Manuscript source: Unsolicited manuscript

    Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology

    Country/Territory of origin: China

    Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification Grade A (Excellent): 0 Grade B (Very good): B, B Grade C (Good): 0 Grade D (Fair): 0 Grade E (Poor): 0

    Received: November 20 , 2020

    Peer-review started: November 20 ,2020

    First decision: January 23 , 2021

    Revised: February 2 , 2021

    Key Words: R2 *; Multi-echo Dixon imaging; Hypoxia; Malignant lesion; Benign lesion;Focal liver lesion

    INTRODUCTION

    Liver cancer is the sixth most common cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide[1]. The liver is also the most frequent site for distant metastases[2].Clinically, once a focal liver lesion (FLL) is identified, it is essential to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions, as this differentiation determines the individual’s prognosis and subsequent treatment strategy[3]. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are widely used to detect and characterize FLLs[4-7]. However, the use of iodine and gadolinium-based contrast agents is sometimes contraindicated; for example, in patients with severe kidney impairment due to the potential development of contrast-induced nephropathy[8] or nephrogenic systemic fibrosis[9]. Several imaging techniques without the need of contrast agents have been used to diagnose FFLs, including diffusionweighted image (DWI), intravoxel incoherent motion, diffusion kurtosis imaging, and magnetic resonance elastography, although these techniques have shown mixed success with limited clinical application[10 -13].

    A hypoxic microenvironment is a hallmark in biology for solid tumors[14 ,15]. It is known that R2 * estimation (R2 * = 1 /T2 *) is inversely related to partial tissue pressure of oxygen, and reflects the paramagnetism of the tumor tissue, such as the presence of deoxygenated hemoglobin[15 -17 ]. Previous studies have demonstrated that R2 * can be used to assess oxygenation status in several malignancies[18 ,19]and offer additive value in identifying metastatic lymph nodes in breast cancer[20 ]. However, whether R2 * can be used to differentiate between benign and malignant FLLs remains to be determined. Besides, 2 D region of interest (2 D-ROI) and volume of interest (VOI)analyses, which are better for R2 * measurement in FFLs, remain elusive.

    In this study, the diagnostic performances of R2 * derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging in differentiating between benign and malignant FLLs based on 2 D-ROI and VOI analyses were investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether R2 * derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging can aid in differentiating benign from malignant FLLs, and the impact of 2 D-ROI and VOI on the outcomes.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Patients

    This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board of our hospital (approval No. SYSEC-KY-KS-2020 -147 ), and the requirement for informed consent from the patients was waived. From January 2019 to December 2019 ,consecutive patients with FLLs were identified from the hospital database. Patients were included if they had: (1 ) A solid malignant or benign FLL confirmed by histology, and follow-up contrast-enhanced CT/MRI examination for at least 6 mo, or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT; and (2 ) Multi-echo Dixon imaging. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1 ) Diffuse liver inflammation (n = 5 ); (2 ) Maximal lesion diameter < 10 mm (n = 5 ); (3 ) Lower signal-to-noise ratio on R2 * images; and (4 )Obvious breathing artifacts on R2 * images (n = 5 ).

    MRI acquisition

    MRI was performed on a 3 .0 T unit (MAGNETOM Skyra; Siemens Healthcare,Erlangen, Germany). The sequences consisted of conventional sequences and multiecho Dixon imaging. Conventional MRI included axial BLADE T2 -weighted imaging(T2 WI) [repetition-time/echo-time (TR/TE) = 9672 .9 -12331 .7 /84 ms; flip angle = 130 °;averages = 1 ; matrix = 320 × 320 ; field of view = 100 mm; slice thickness = 5 mm], axial and coronal T1 -weighted imaging (T1 WI) volume interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) (TR/TE = 3 .97 /1 .29 ms; flip angle = 9 °; averages = 1 ; matrix = 320 × 180 ; field of view = 75 mm; slice thickness = 3 mm), and axial DWI (TR/TE =4900 /66 ms; flip angle = 90 °; averages = 12 ; matrix = 192 × 113 ; field of view = 78 .125 mm; slice thickness = 5 mm; b values = 0 and 800 s/m2 ). The multi-echo Dixon imaging was performed with T2 * correction. The acquisition parameters were: TR = 9 ms; six-echo with TE = 1 .05 /2 .46 /3 .69 /4 .92 /6 .15 /7 .38 ms; averages = 1 ; matrix = 160 ×136 ; field of view = 450 mm; slice thickness = 3 .5 mm; number of slices = 64 ; a flip angle = 4 ° was used to minimize the effects of T1 weighting[21]. This sequence was acquired in a breath-hold of 16 s. After these sequences, multiphase contrast-enhanced imaging was performed after administration of gadolinium contrast medium(Magnevist; Bayer Schering Pharma, Berlin, Germany) using a fat-suppressed dynamic contrast enhancement sequence with the following acquisition parameters: TR/TE =3 .8 /1 .23 ms; averages = 1 ; slice thickness = 2 .5 ; field of view = 80 .56 ; matrix = 288 ×186 ; flip angle = 10 °. Then, all patients underwent axial and coronal contrast-enhanced T1 WI–VIBE (TR/TE = 3 .97 /1 .26 ms; flip angle = 9 °; averages = 1 ; slice thickness = 2 .3 mm; matrix = 320 × 180 ; field of view = 75 mm).

    Image analysis

    All the images were assessed by using the ImageJ software (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/). A low flip angle multi-echo Dixon sequence was used to derive R2 * to minimize T1 -related bias and improve the separation of water and fat. The improved?tting of the signals within fatty tissues allows more accurate R2 * mapping and T2 *correction of the water-fat separation[22]. Two experienced radiologists (Shi GZ and Gao M, with 6 and 12 years of experience in liver diagnostic imaging, respectively)who were blinded to the diagnosis of patients manually delineated the lesions on R2 *maps. For 2 D-ROI, a single freehand ROI was drawn to cover the whole tumor area on the section showing the maximal tumor dimension. For VOI, the freehand ROI was placed slice by slice to cover the entire tumor volume. The mean R2 * values measured by 2 D-ROI and VOI were used for analysis (Figure 1 ).

    Laboratory and anthropometric evaluations

    Hepatitis B virus infection, α-fetoprotein (AFP), carbohydrate antigen 19 -9 (CA 19 -9 ),and carcinoma embryonic antigen (CEA) were measured using standard reagents.Liver cirrhosis was determined by Masson trichrome staining. The normal ranges are:AFP ≤ 25 ng/mL, CA 19 -9 ≤ 34 U/mL, and CEA ≤ 5 ng/mL. Laboratory examination was performed before clinical treatment. The time between laboratory examination and multi-echo MRI examination was within 1 wk.

    Figure 1 Two-dimensional region of interest and volume of interest. A-C: T2 -weighted imaging (T2 WI) (A), arterial phase contrast-enhanced T1 -weighted imaging (T1 WI) (B), and R2 * map showed liver metastasis (yellow line) (C) confirmed by histology in a 59 -year-old woman with lung cancer; D: Twodimensional region of interest was drawn on the section showing the maximal tumor dimension; E-G: T2 WI (E), arterial phase contrast-enhanced T1 WI (F), and R2 *map showed a live hemangioma (yellow line) (G) in a 59 -year-old woman; H: Volume of interest was placed covering the entire tumor volume on R2 * map. 2 D-ROI:Two-dimensional region of interest; VOI: Volume of interest.

    Diagnosis of FLLs

    All analyzed lesions were diagnosed by contrast-enhanced MRI, follow-up contrastenhanced CT/MRI examination within at least 6 mo, fluorine 18 (18 F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT, or histopathological findings (hepatectomy or biopsy)[5,22 -25]. Diagnostic reference standard was established based on histopathological confirmation in 29 /32 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), 6 /9 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (IHCCs), 7 /37 metastases, 5 /25 hemangiomas, and 2 /3 focal nodular hyperplasias (FNHs). In the remaining 69 FLLs without histopathological results, diagnoses were established by well-accepted imaging findings in all acquired MRI sequences (e.g., T1 WI, T2 WI, T2 -SPAIR, DWI, and contrast-enhanced T1 WI).Criteria were determined by consensus reading of two experienced radiologists (R1 ,Shi GZ; and R2 , Gao M) by consideration of all acquired images. Further reference standards were required: (1 ) FFLs were diagnosed as primary malignant FFLs if they showed (a) characteristic imaging appearance during a 6 -mo imaging follow-up combined with (b) clinical symptoms and serological results; (2 ) FFLs were diagnosed as liver metastasis in patients with primary malignancies (pathologically confirmed)when at least one of the following criteria was satisfied: (a) Newly developed lesion or an increase in size with typical imaging appearance during a 6 -mo imaging follow-up;and (b) abnormal18 F FDG uptake at PET-CT examination; and (3 ) FFLs were diagnosed as benign lesions if (a) they were stable at 6 -mo imaging follow-up with characteristic imaging appearance in subjects at low risk; and (b) no malignant tumor was found in patients with benign FLLs during imaging examination.

    Three HCCs, three IHCCs, and 19 metastases were diagnosed according to 6 -mo imaging follow-up. Eleven metastases were confirmed by PET-CT. In liver metastasis patients, the primary tumors were bladder cancer (n = 9 ), lung cancer (n = 2 ),colorectal cancer (n = 7 ), cervical cancer (n = 4 ), gastric cancer (n = 3 ), gallbladder cancer (n = 1 ), breast cancer (n = 1 ), and HCC (n = 10 ). For benign FLLs, 20 hemangiomas and one FNH were confirmed by 6 -mo imaging follow-up. Two liver abscesses had typical imaging findings in all the MRI sequences and typical imaging findings in a 6 -mo follow-up MRI examination after clinical treatment.

    Statistical analysis

    Numerical data are expressed as the mean ± SD. The Bland–Altman plot was performed to determine the interobserver agreement on R2 * measurements. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the reliability between the two radiologists in R2 * measurements using 2 D-ROI and VOI methods (0 -0 .20 poor; 0 .21 -0 .40 fair; 0 .41 -0 .60 moderate; 0 .61 -0 .80 good; and 0 .81 -1 .0 excellent correlation). Mean R2 * values from the two readers were used for the final analysis. Nonparametric Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the difference in R2 * values between the malignant and benign groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performances of R2 *. The area under the ROC curve (AUC), optimal cut-off values, sensitivity, and specificity were determined as the maximum Youden index. Differences in the diagnostic performance of the two different ROI positioning methods were analyzed by comparing ROC curves according to the method developed by DeLong et al[26 ]. P < 0 .05 (two-tail) indicated a statistically significant difference.

    RESULTS

    Clinicopathological characteristics

    A total of 108 FLLs were found in 73 patients, including 78 malignant FLLs (mean maximum diameter, 48 .2 ± 37 .7 mm; range, 11 -163 mm) and 30 benign FLLs (mean maximum diameter, 32 .3 ± 22 .5 mm; range, 14 -94 mm). Forty-nine patients had malignant FFLs (30 men and 19 women; mean age, 56 .3 ± 10 .3 years; range, 40 -81 years), and 24 patients (11 men and 13 women; mean age, 52 .1 ± 12 .9 years; range, 31 -73 years) had benign FLLs. The malignant FFLs included 32 HCCs, nine IHCCs, and 37 liver metastases. Benign FFLs included 25 hemangiomas, three FNHs, and two liver abscesses. The mean maximum diameter of liver metastases, HCCs, and IHCCs was 29 .1 ± 24 .1 mm (range, 11 -122 mm), 66 .3 ± 43 .0 mm (range, 15 –163 mm), and 61 .9 ± 25 .9 mm (range, 32 -111 mm), respectively. In benign FFLs, the mean maximum diameter of hemangiomas, FNHs, and liver abscesses was 29 .4 ± 21 .8 mm (range, 14 -94 mm), 32 .0 ±8 .5 mm (range, 23 -40 mm), and 69 .5 ± 12 .0 mm (range, 61 -78 mm), respectively.Clinicopathological characteristics and laboratory evaluations of FFLs are shown in Tables 1 and 2 .

    R2 * analysis

    Figure 2 shows the Bland–Altman plot measurement of R2 * of FLLs for the two readers. For 2 D-ROI analysis, the 95 % limits of agreement of R2 * for the two readers were from -5 .68 to 5 .04 /s, and the mean difference for the two readers was -0 .32 /s. For VOI analysis, the 95 % limits of agreement of R2 * for the two readers were from -3 .65 to 3 .28 /s, and the mean difference for the two readers was -0 .18 /s. The differences between the two readers using two different methods were relatively small. ICC for the 2 D-ROI method was 0 .994 and ICC for the VOI method was 0 .998 . The interobserver agreement was excellent.

    The mean R2 * values measured by 2 D-ROI and VOI methods were significantly higher in the malignant group than in the benign group (2 D-ROI: 37 .99 ± 17 .71 vs 18 .6 ± 8 .43 /s, P < 0 .001 ; VOI: 41 .11 ± 19 .01 vs 20 .61 ± 9 .01 /s, P < 0 .001 ). For 2 D-ROI measurement, the mean R2 * value of liver metastases was 44 .17 ± 21 .90 /s, and the mean R2 * values of HCCs and IHCCs were 33 .45 ± 10 .15 and 28 .72 ± 10 .21 /s,respectively. The mean R2 * values of hemangiomas, FNHs, and abscesses were 16 .66 ±8 .18 , 26 .21 ± 5 .61 , and 23 .29 ± 9 .31 /s, respectively. For VOI measurement, FFLs had a mean R2 * value of 48 .42 ± 23 .61 /s for liver metastases, 35 .41 ± 10 .04 /s for HCCs, 31 .34 ± 9 .65 /s for IHCCs, 19 .36 ± 8 .93 /s for hemangiomas, 27 .87 ± 7 .46 /s for FNHs, and 25 .29 ± 10 .46 /s for abscesses. Malignant FFLs had higher R2 * values than benign FLLs regardless of ROI placement methods (Table 3 ).

    ROC analysis

    The AUC of 2 D-ROI was 0 .884 (95 %CI, 0 .819 to 0 .950 ) at a cut-off of 25 .2 /s, with a sensitivity of 84 .6 % and specificity of 80 .0 % for differentiating benign from malignant FFLs. The VOI method yielded an AUC of 0 .875 (95 %CI: 0 .806 to 0 .945 ) at a cut-off of 26 .7 /s in distinguishing benign from malignant FFLs, with a sensitivity of 85 .9 % and specificity of 76 .7 %. There was no significant difference between the AUCs for 2 D-ROI and VOI positioning methods for discriminating benign from malignant FFLs (Z =1 .069 , P = 0 .285 ) (Figure 3 ).

    Table 1 Baseline characteristics of malignant and benign focal liver lesions of 73 patients

    DISCUSSION

    Our study showed that the mean R2 * value of malignant FLLs was significantly higher than that of the benign FLLs. R2 * derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging is a potential biomarker to differentiate malignant from benign FFLs.

    The combined use of MRI, CT, and ultrasound has a high diagnostic performance for the identification of FLLs, but requires the administration of gadolinium or iodine contrast agents[7]. Gadolinium contrast is contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment, because it may induce nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, and may even be a greater risk in patients with liver dysfunction[27 ,28]. Iodinated contrast administration for CT may aggravate renal failure[8]. Currently, no alternative imaging methods have been widely advocated for these patients. Hypoxia is an important factor in cancer progression, affecting the autonomous functions of tumor cells and nonautonomous processes such as angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis, and inflammation[29]. Hypoxia causes an increase in the concentration of deoxygenated hemoglobin in the tumor.Deoxyhemoglobin can be used as an endogenous hypoxia tracer that may produce local magnetic field inhomogeneities to reduce T2 * relaxation time[30]. Furthermore,higher local deoxyhemoglobin may result in a decrease in proton T2 * relaxation time and a corresponding increase in R2 *, which indicates a link between R2 * and the oxygen concentration of local tissues[15]. Recently, susceptibility-weighted imaging,which was originally called blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) venographic imaging, has demonstrated advantages in the detection of hemorrhagic events due to its sensitivity to paramagnetic substances[31]. Also, BOLD MRI has shown ability in assessing tumor oxygenation and indirectly hypoxia, by detecting signal changes secondary to changes in blood flow and oxygenation[32]. These two sequences were commonly used in the central nervous system[33 ,34 ]. Currently, T2 * has been used in assessing tissue oxygenation status in vivo based on the paramagnetic properties of deoxyhemoglobin[35]. Besides, this technique has been shown to be feasible and accurate in the detection of HCC[27 ,32]

    Previously, R2 * values have been used to distinguish cancerous from normal prostatic regions, with higher mean R2 * values being related to a higher tumor Gleason score[36 ]. In addition, higher R2 * values were found in high-grade bladder cancer[15 ] and clear cell renal cell carcinoma[37]than those of low-grade malignancies. Inour study, the mean R2 * value of malignant FLLs was significantly higher than that of the benign FLLs. This may be attributed to the rapid growth of liver malignancies,resulting in a relatively hypoxic state and an increase in deoxyhemoglobin[15].Consequently, the corresponding increase in R2 * value may correlate with the degree of malignancy of FFL. R2 * may be used as a quantitative imaging biomarker to provide additional information for tumor differential diagnosis.

    Table 2 Clinicopathological characteristics of 108 focal liver lesions

    In our study, mean R2 * values, whether derived from 2 D-ROI or VOI segmentation positioning methods, were highly reproducible. Moreover, the AUC of R2 * measured by 2 D-ROI was 0 .884 with a sensitivity of 84 .6 % and specificity of 80 .0 %, while AUC of R2 * measured by VOI yielded an AUC of 0 .875 with a sensitivity of 85 .9 % and specificity of 76 .7 %, in distinguishing benign from malignant FFLs, respectively.Campo et al[38]demonstrated that a large ROI that refers to as large an area of the liver as possible can improve the reproducibility and repeatability of R2 * measurements inpatients with low and high liver iron content. McCarville et al[39]reported excellent interobserver agreements in liver R2 * for both small (≥ 1 cm diameter) and whole liver ROI methods for iron overloaded patients who underwent biopsy. Sofue et al[40]found that R2 * measurements of whole liver volume and colocalized ROIs in three different hepatic segments were repeatable between examinations. However, these studies investigated ROI location of R2 * measurements in diffusive liver lesions rather than FLLs. To the best of our knowledge, our study was the first to investigate R2 *measurements in FFLs.

    Table 3 Mean R2 * values for different focal liver lesions

    We found similar results in differentiating between benign and malignant FLLs by using 2 D-ROI and VOI methods for R2 * measurement. ROC curve analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the AUCs for 2 D-ROI and VOI positioning methods for discriminating benign from malignant FFLs. R2 * measured by VOI analysis showed an AUC of 0 .875 , while 2 D-ROI analysis showed an AUC of 0 .884 in differentiating between benign and malignant FLLs. These results indicate that the impact of the different ROI positioning methods could be ignored for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant FFLs. Thust et al[41]obtained the same results in volumetric and 2 D measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient in distinguishing glioma subtypes. Compared with VOI, 2 D-ROI is easier to delineate and easily incorporated into clinical practice. The easy implementation of R2 *measurements using 2 D-ROI will facilitate its clinical application.

    Figure 3 Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the two positioning methods in differentiating between malignant group and benign group. Two-dimensional region of interest and volume of interest methods yielded similar results. 2 D-ROI: Two-dimensional region of interest; VOI: Volume of interest; AUC: Area under the curve.

    There were several limitations to this study. First, this was a single-center study,and the number of patients in the cohort was relatively small. A larger patient cohort in a multicenter setting is needed to validate our findings. Second, R2 * is an indirect method for monitoring tumor PO2[42 ]. In addition to the oxygenation state, R2 * can also be affected by other factors, such as hemoglobin levels, blood volume, and vasculature[15 ]. Nevertheless, various studies have found that T2 WI is a highly sensitive technique for reliably assessing paramagnetic deoxyhemoglobin, methemoglobin, or hemosiderin in lesions and tissues in body imaging[30 ,35 ,37 ]. R2 * quantification can yield hypoxia information about malignancies in a noninvasive manner[19 ,42]. In addition, the sequence used in our study is easy to perform and requires only a single breath-hold of 16 s to image the entire liver, and no image postprocessing is required.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, R2 * values derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging can aid in discrimination between benign and malignant FLLs. 2 D-ROI and VOI methods do not affect the diagnostic performance of R2 *. R2 * measured by 2 D-ROI can be adopted to improve diagnostic accuracy of FFLs, particularly in patients with a contraindication to contrast agents.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research results

    The study included 30 benign and 78 malignant FLLs. Mean R2 * was significantly higher for malignant than benign FFLs as measured by 2 D-ROI (P < 0 .001 ) and VOI (P< 0 .001 ). The area under the curve (AUC) of R2 * measured by 2 D-ROI was 0 .884 at a cut-off of 25 .2 /s, with a sensitivity of 84 .6 % and specificity of 80 .0 % for differentiating benign from malignant FFLs. R2 * measured by VOI yielded a AUC of 0 .875 at a cut-off of 26 .7 /s in distinguishing benign from malignant FFLs, with a sensitivity of 85 .9 %and specificity of 76 .7 %. The AUCs of R2 * were not significantly different between the 2 D-ROI and VOI methods. However, due to the relatively small sample size, a large population from multiple centers is needed for further validation of our findings.

    Research conclusions

    R2 * derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging can aid in differentiation between benign and malignant FLLs. 2 D-ROI and VOI methods do not affect the diagnostic performance of R2 *.

    Research perspectives

    This study describes that R2 * value derived from multi-echo Dixon imaging can aid in differentiation between benign and malignant FLLs. The multi-echo Dixon sequence is easy to perform and requires only a single breath-hold of 16 s to image the entire liver,which holds a good potential for clinical application.

    在线免费观看的www视频| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 久9热在线精品视频| 久久久久国内视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 成人三级黄色视频| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 我的亚洲天堂| 国产激情久久老熟女| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| www.999成人在线观看| 午夜免费观看网址| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 亚洲伊人色综图| 乱人伦中国视频| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 欧美日韩黄片免| 成年版毛片免费区| 咕卡用的链子| 日日夜夜操网爽| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产激情久久老熟女| 伦理电影免费视频| 正在播放国产对白刺激| www.精华液| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 操出白浆在线播放| av福利片在线| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 午夜老司机福利片| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 一区二区三区精品91| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 精品久久久久久电影网| 一区在线观看完整版| 一区在线观看完整版| 视频区图区小说| 精品国产一区二区久久| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 国产av又大| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 男人操女人黄网站| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 麻豆av在线久日| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| av国产精品久久久久影院| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 在线观看一区二区三区| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 99热只有精品国产| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 午夜免费观看网址| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 久久久久久大精品| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 一级片'在线观看视频| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 大码成人一级视频| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 久久香蕉国产精品| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | www.熟女人妻精品国产| 91老司机精品| 精品高清国产在线一区| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| www日本在线高清视频| 一级片免费观看大全| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 日日夜夜操网爽| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 91麻豆av在线| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 伦理电影免费视频| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 午夜影院日韩av| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 高清欧美精品videossex| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 欧美在线黄色| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 88av欧美| 香蕉丝袜av| 91国产中文字幕| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 老司机福利观看| 多毛熟女@视频| 91老司机精品| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 久久人妻av系列| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 在线国产一区二区在线| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产成人欧美| 免费看a级黄色片| 黄色女人牲交| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 日本wwww免费看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 亚洲欧美激情在线| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 亚洲av熟女| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 曰老女人黄片| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 久久久国产一区二区| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 嫩草影视91久久| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 久久久久久久久中文| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 久久久久九九精品影院| 老司机福利观看| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 久久亚洲真实| 久99久视频精品免费| 一级片'在线观看视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费 | 国产精品影院久久| 午夜福利欧美成人| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 亚洲国产欧美网| 身体一侧抽搐| 亚洲激情在线av| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 黄片播放在线免费| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 一级毛片精品| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 欧美在线黄色| 成在线人永久免费视频| 久久这里只有精品19| 搡老乐熟女国产| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 乱人伦中国视频| 露出奶头的视频| 久久99一区二区三区| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 日本三级黄在线观看| 精品国产国语对白av| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 很黄的视频免费| 伦理电影免费视频| 精品福利观看| 最好的美女福利视频网| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 中文欧美无线码| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 午夜影院日韩av| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区 | 午夜福利免费观看在线| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 国产色视频综合| 国产片内射在线| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 深夜精品福利| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 校园春色视频在线观看| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 久久中文字幕一级| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 成人精品一区二区免费| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 99香蕉大伊视频| 脱女人内裤的视频| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 国产成人系列免费观看| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 男人舔女人的私密视频| videosex国产| 视频区图区小说| 91在线观看av| 亚洲伊人色综图| 天天添夜夜摸| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| av有码第一页| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 不卡一级毛片| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 身体一侧抽搐| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| www.999成人在线观看| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 我的亚洲天堂| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费 | 999精品在线视频| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 免费在线观看日本一区| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 久久久久久大精品| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 精品国产国语对白av| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| av电影中文网址| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影 | 热99re8久久精品国产| 在线国产一区二区在线| 亚洲伊人色综图| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 高清欧美精品videossex| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼 | 一级毛片高清免费大全| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 香蕉丝袜av| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 日韩高清综合在线| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 91成年电影在线观看| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 成人三级做爰电影| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 午夜福利,免费看| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址 | 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸 | 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 级片在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 久久中文字幕一级| 国产激情久久老熟女| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产av又大| 精品高清国产在线一区| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产成人精品无人区| 久久久国产一区二区| 少妇 在线观看| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 日韩有码中文字幕| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 久久人妻av系列| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 国产激情久久老熟女| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 99热只有精品国产| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 无限看片的www在线观看| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 一a级毛片在线观看| 大香蕉久久成人网| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 日本欧美视频一区| 麻豆av在线久日| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 老司机福利观看| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 色综合站精品国产| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 天堂动漫精品| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 丰满的人妻完整版| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 成人影院久久| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 中国美女看黄片| 国产熟女xx| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 国产99白浆流出| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲人成电影观看| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 99久久国产精品久久久| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| av网站免费在线观看视频| 久久青草综合色| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜 | 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 在线观看午夜福利视频| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| av在线天堂中文字幕 | 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 91九色精品人成在线观看| 99热只有精品国产| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产99白浆流出| 黄频高清免费视频| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 日本a在线网址| 久久青草综合色| 美女午夜性视频免费| 99热国产这里只有精品6| av免费在线观看网站| 极品教师在线免费播放| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 免费不卡黄色视频| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 国产熟女xx| 国产av精品麻豆| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 天堂影院成人在线观看| av在线播放免费不卡| 久99久视频精品免费| 国产精品免费视频内射| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 高清av免费在线| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 男人操女人黄网站| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 精品高清国产在线一区| 88av欧美| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 搡老乐熟女国产| 国产又爽黄色视频| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| netflix在线观看网站| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 久久久国产一区二区| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 嫩草影院精品99| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 大香蕉久久成人网| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 91av网站免费观看| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 女警被强在线播放| 欧美日韩黄片免| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 成人三级做爰电影| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 国产成年人精品一区二区 | 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 一区二区三区精品91| 窝窝影院91人妻| 精品人妻1区二区| 夜夜爽天天搞| 9191精品国产免费久久| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站 | 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 国产区一区二久久| ponron亚洲| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼 | 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 国产精品 国内视频| 欧美日韩av久久| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费 | 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产成年人精品一区二区 | 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| www.精华液| 午夜免费观看网址| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频 | 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 午夜激情av网站| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 国产精品免费视频内射| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av | 精品国产亚洲在线| 制服诱惑二区| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 日韩有码中文字幕| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 多毛熟女@视频| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 十八禁网站免费在线| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 高清欧美精品videossex| 亚洲av熟女| 在线观看66精品国产| 国产精华一区二区三区| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| av天堂在线播放| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 日本 av在线| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 久久九九热精品免费| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 高清av免费在线| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 制服人妻中文乱码| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 久久性视频一级片| 自线自在国产av| 国产成人欧美在线观看|