• <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.

    另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 国产在线免费精品| 赤兔流量卡办理| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 韩国av在线不卡| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 美女主播在线视频| 午夜福利高清视频| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 亚洲成色77777| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 秋霞伦理黄片| 老女人水多毛片| 中文字幕制服av| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 高清毛片免费看| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 国产在线免费精品| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线 | 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 午夜日本视频在线| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 成人国产麻豆网| av免费观看日本| 国产 一区精品| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 色网站视频免费| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 免费看光身美女| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 欧美97在线视频| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 99久久人妻综合| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 国产成人aa在线观看| 一级黄片播放器| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 国产 精品1| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 国产乱来视频区| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 高清毛片免费看| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 99热这里只有精品一区| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频 | 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 精品久久久久久久久av| 亚洲av.av天堂| 美女国产视频在线观看| 国产精品一及| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 免费av中文字幕在线| 精品一区在线观看国产| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 午夜免费鲁丝| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| av卡一久久| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| videos熟女内射| 在线观看人妻少妇| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看 | 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 国产精品一及| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级 | 最黄视频免费看| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 亚洲av.av天堂| 黑人高潮一二区| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 观看美女的网站| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 亚洲综合精品二区| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 欧美3d第一页| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| .国产精品久久| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 一级a做视频免费观看| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 国产视频内射| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 精品亚洲成国产av| 日韩电影二区| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产在线免费精品| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 精品久久久久久电影网| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 97超视频在线观看视频| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 高清不卡的av网站| 国产av国产精品国产| 日本一二三区视频观看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看 | 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 精品一区在线观看国产| 美女福利国产在线 | 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 岛国毛片在线播放| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 亚洲精品一二三| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 中文天堂在线官网| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 五月天丁香电影| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 成人国产av品久久久| 日本欧美视频一区| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 成人国产av品久久久| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产91av在线免费观看| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费 | 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 51国产日韩欧美| av黄色大香蕉| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 免费av不卡在线播放| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 中国三级夫妇交换| 舔av片在线| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 亚洲精品视频女| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 亚洲无线观看免费| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 九色成人免费人妻av| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 色哟哟·www| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 人妻系列 视频| 中文字幕久久专区| 久久久久国产网址| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 日本午夜av视频| 日韩av免费高清视频| 成人无遮挡网站| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 国产精品成人在线| 一级毛片 在线播放| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 中文字幕制服av| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 99热这里只有精品一区| 伦精品一区二区三区| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 国产 一区精品| 欧美另类一区| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说 | 欧美97在线视频| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 草草在线视频免费看| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 高清av免费在线| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 日本与韩国留学比较| 九色成人免费人妻av| 好男人视频免费观看在线| a级毛色黄片| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 亚洲久久久国产精品| freevideosex欧美| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 三级国产精品片| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 黄片wwwwww| 天堂8中文在线网| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| av在线app专区| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 97超碰精品成人国产| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产av一区二区精品久久 | 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 美女高潮的动态| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 多毛熟女@视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 熟女av电影| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片 | 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产极品天堂在线| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 一级a做视频免费观看| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 夫妻午夜视频| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 精品亚洲成国产av| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲内射少妇av| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 久热这里只有精品99| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 搡老乐熟女国产| 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲最大成人中文| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 99久久人妻综合| 色网站视频免费| 七月丁香在线播放| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 在现免费观看毛片| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 色网站视频免费| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 在现免费观看毛片| av视频免费观看在线观看| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 亚洲国产精品999| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 国产91av在线免费观看| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 六月丁香七月| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 国产美女午夜福利| 亚洲性久久影院| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 国产美女午夜福利| 久久av网站| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 如何舔出高潮| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站 | 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 久久久久网色| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲 | 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 在线精品无人区一区二区三 | 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 91久久精品电影网| 久久97久久精品| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 美女福利国产在线 | 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜 | 三级经典国产精品| 亚洲av福利一区| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | av在线观看视频网站免费| 精品久久久久久久末码| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 国产成人精品婷婷| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 亚洲成人手机| 91狼人影院| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 成人影院久久| 久热久热在线精品观看| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 97超视频在线观看视频| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 国产亚洲最大av| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 身体一侧抽搐| 六月丁香七月| 91狼人影院| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 18+在线观看网站| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www | 三级国产精品片| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 久久婷婷青草| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| .国产精品久久| 舔av片在线| 国产成人a区在线观看| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 成人影院久久| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 黄色配什么色好看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| av专区在线播放| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 色综合色国产| 九色成人免费人妻av| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 日本免费在线观看一区| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 97超碰精品成人国产| 一级片'在线观看视频| videos熟女内射| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 久热久热在线精品观看| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 老司机影院毛片| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| av专区在线播放| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| av在线蜜桃| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看 | 日本黄色片子视频| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 国产黄片美女视频| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 91狼人影院| av一本久久久久| 国产av一区二区精品久久 | 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 亚州av有码| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 少妇人妻 视频| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 国产美女午夜福利| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 韩国av在线不卡| 一区二区三区精品91| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 如何舔出高潮| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 国产精品一及| 日韩视频在线欧美| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 内地一区二区视频在线| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | av卡一久久| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 在线免费十八禁| 久久精品人妻少妇| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 日本色播在线视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 免费看光身美女| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 身体一侧抽搐| 韩国av在线不卡| 美女主播在线视频| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 亚洲av福利一区| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 国产av一区二区精品久久 | 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 久久国产精品大桥未久av | 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 两个人的视频大全免费| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 中文欧美无线码| 内地一区二区视频在线| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 国产淫语在线视频| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| kizo精华| 久久 成人 亚洲| av.在线天堂| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 老熟女久久久| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| av.在线天堂| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 日韩伦理黄色片| 精品亚洲成国产av| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 青春草国产在线视频| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 嫩草影院新地址| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 一区在线观看完整版| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 舔av片在线| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| av在线老鸭窝| 欧美一区二区亚洲|