• <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 ?

    Clinicoradiographic predictors of progression of an intermediate hepatic lesion (LI-RADS 3) to hepatocellular carcinoma (LI-RADS 5)

    2021-05-10 09:11:18LindsayHannanPatriciaOjedaRebeccaMieloszykWilliamHarrisJamesParkPuneetBhargava
    Hepatoma Research 2021年12期

    Lindsay M. Hannan, Patricia I. Ojeda, Rebecca J. Mieloszyk,3, William P. Harris,4, James O. Park, Puneet Bhargava

    1Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

    2Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

    3Microsoft, Redmond, WA 98052, USA.

    4Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.

    5Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

    Abstract Aim: We sought to identify predictors of progression of an indeterminate observation (LI-RADS 3) to hepatocellular carcinoma (LI-RADS 5).Methods: Imaging reports with LI-RADS (LR) assignments were identified among patients at the University of Washington, 2013-2017. Patients with an LR3 lesion and follow-up scan within 1 year of LR3 lesion date were included (n = 313). Features of interest were abstracted from chart review. Survival analyses employing interval censoring were performed, with variables potentially predictive of LR3 progression identified in univariate analyses.Backwards elimination (P < 0.05) was used to obtain the final multivariate model.Results: 20.4% of LR3 lesions progressed to LR5; 73% remained LR3, 8% LR4. The cohort was predominantly male(61%), Caucasian (54%), older than 55 (63%). 47% had a history of hepatitis C virus (HCV), 33% with alcohol abuse, not mutually exclusive. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) at the time of LR3 scan was low if available (39% with AFP<5, 29% unknown). CT was the most common exam (56%). Men (HR = 2.0, P = 0.02), earlier scan year (HR =0.47 per year, P < 0.0001), and older age (HR = 1.48, P = 0.03), appeared as predictors of LR progression in the final model. HCV and alcohol use were more common among men but did not appear to explain the difference in LR progression by sex.

    Keywords: LI-RADS, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver imaging

    INTRODUCTION

    The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was developed by expert consensus of the American College of Radiology to standardize reporting of liver imaging for patients at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)[1,2]. The LI-RADS classification system was introduced in 2011 and has undergone revisions in 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2018[3,4]. The devised algorithm for diagnostic imaging incorporates imaging techniques and radiographic features on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MR) to assign a probability that a specific liver observation represents HCC. LI-RADS(LR) observations range in intervals from “1” (“definitely benign”) to “5” (“definitely HCC”) and include“M” (“malignant not definitely HCC”). LR observations have been incorporated in the American Academy of for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) algorithm for the diagnosis of HCC[5], with an LR 5 observation(LR-5) considered diagnostic. An LR assignment of 3 (LR-3) is indicative of an “indeterminate” probability of HCC, with approximately 33% of LR-3 observations eventually upgraded to LR-5[5,6]. Current recommendations for the management of an LR-3 observation are to repeat diagnostic imaging within 3 to 6 months of the original imaging. If such a lesion develops features that are conclusive for HCC, i.e., LR-5,on subsequent scans, then there is consideration of locoregional therapies associated with good outcomes,e.g., partial hepatectomy, thermal ablation, with estimated 5-year overall survival of approximately 60%-80%[7]. Identification of clinicoradiographic factors associated with increased risk of progression of an LR-3 observation to a definitive HCC (i.e., LR-5) on subsequent imaging could be helpful in identifying cases that could merit earlier locoregional intervention or cases that could merit biopsy or closer monitoring with diagnostic imaging modalities to allow for more timely intervention. Our study represents an early exploration of potential clinicoradiographic characteristics that may be useful in identifying indeterminate hepatic observations at high risk for progression to HCC.

    METHODS

    CT and MR imaging reports generated within the University of Washington medical system from 2013 to 2017 were queried to locate imaging studies that identified hepatic observations with LR score assigned. A total of 6340 such scans were identified, representing 2602 patients. An augmented search tool was developed, utilizing available character functions to standardize, parse and highlight text to more easily locate the LR score or scores within the body of the report. It was decided a priori to record the highest LR score contained within the report when multiple observations were identified. Radiology reports with an LR-3 observation as the most advanced observation are hereafter referred to as the “LR-3 scan”. Patients were excluded if the LR-3 scan was preceded by a scan containing an LR-4 or LR-5 observation (treated or untreated), if there was no follow-up scan within 1 year of the date of the LR-3 scan, or if there was no documentation of cirrhosis or diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) based on chart review[Figure 1]. The dates of each scan were obtained from the initial imaging report query.

    Figure 1. Study flowchart with exclusion criteria.

    The texts of available clinical documentation, e.g., progress notes, for the included patients were queried using a variation of the aforementioned tool to abstract clinical characteristics of interest such as etiology of cirrhosis [e.g., hepatitis C virus (HCV), chronic HBV infection, excessive alcohol consumption, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), autoimmune hepatitis], chronic HBV infection and sex. Age at a specific scan was calculated by obtaining the difference between date of birth and date of the scan. Laboratory values for alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), albumin, creatinine, and the dates of each laboratory value were obtained directly from the electronic medical record. For each scan, laboratory values that were obtained 30 days or less prior to the scan date were considered the laboratory value at the time of the specific scan. If there were multiple laboratory values within the 30-day period, then the laboratory value that resulted closest to the date of the scan was recorded. If there were no laboratory results available prior to a scan date, then laboratory results drawn within a 10-day period after the scan were recorded. The albumin-bilirubin (ALBI)grade[8]was used to approximate hepatic function at the time of each scan. The ALBI value was generated by the following equation: [log10bilirubin (μmol/L) × 0.66] + [albumin (g/L) × -0.0852] with the grade assigned based on the value (grade 1: ALBI score ≤ -2.60, grade 2: > -2.60 to ≤ -1.39, and grade 3: > -1.39), with higher grades representing more advanced hepatic dysfunction. The texts of the radiology reports for the included patients were queried using a variation of the aforementioned tool to abstract radiographic characteristics of interest, e.g., solitary versus multiple LR-3 observations, size of LR-3 observations, site of observation within the liver, and vascularity (i.e., hypovascular, hypervascular). Missing data for each aforementioned characteristic were addressed by the addition of a “missing” category for each variable.

    The outcome of interest was defined as progression of an LR-3 observation to an LR-5 observation within a 12-month time period on either CT or MR, hereafter referred to as “LR progression”. An LR-3 observation was considered to have progressed at the earliest date of subsequent CT or MR scan that identified the presence of an LR-5 observation, hereafter referred to as the “LR-5 scan”. The underlying time metric was defined as the time between the LR-3 scan date until either date of identification of the LR-5 observation or the date of the last scan obtained prior to 365 days post the LR-3 scan date. Independent validation of the findings of the published reports was not pursued. Independent validation that the lesion in question remained the same lesion observed in subsequent imaging studies was not pursued.

    Differences between groups of interest were evaluated usingχ2vs. Fisher Exact tests, as appropriate. Survival analyses with interval censoring were performed to assess the association between variables of interest and the outcome of interest, i.e., LR progression within one year, with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated as the measure of association. Variables as potentially predictive of LR progression were identified in univariate analyses. For character variables of interest, the statistical significance of the measure of effect was ascertained by examination of the globalP-value generated for the univariate model. For numerical variables, univariate models were constructed with the variable of interest in categories (e.g., age <55, age 55 to 60,etc.; globalP-value) as well as trend (e.g., the ordinal value assigned to the categories in the natural order;P-trend). Variables associated with the outcome of interest with either trendP-value or globalP-value < 0.1 were considered as potential risk factors. The potential risk factors were then included in multivariate survival analysis with interval censoring, with backwards elimination utilized until all remaining variables were associated with a level of statistical significance of < 0.05 or less with the outcome of interest. Sub-analyses by sex and by etiology of cirrhosis were planned. The augmented searches and data analysis for this paper were performed using SAS software. Copyright ? 2020. SAS Institute Inc. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

    RESULTS

    A total of 411 patients were identified with an LR-3 observation reported on imaging (LR-3 scan) that (1)was not preceded by a report of an LR-5 observation and (2) was followed by at least one scan. Further exclusions were made, including patients with no documentation of cirrhosis or documentation of chronic HBV on chart review, next scan > 365 days of the LR-3 scan, and next scan < 30 days of the LR-3 scan,leaving 313 patients. Of these patients, 15.3% had LR-3 scans with observations downgraded to LR-1 or LR-2 during the study period, 57.8% had scans with observations remaining as LR-3, and 6.3% and 20.4% had scans with observations upgraded to an LR-4 and LR-5, respectively. A total of 294 (93.9%) of the LR-3 imaging studies were performed within the University of Washington system, while the remaining 19 imaging studies were performed elsewhere but were overread by University of Washington radiology.

    Most of the analytic cohort was male (61.3%), Caucasian (54.0%), and older than 55 (63.3%) [Table 1]. The most common etiologies of cirrhosis identified were HCV (46.7%) and excessive alcohol consumption(32.6%), not mutually exclusive. NASH and chronic HBV infection were rare (9.6% and 9.3%, respectively).The most common combinations of etiologies were HCV with excessive alcohol consumption (16.6%),followed by HBV with HCV (1.0%). A total of 90 (28.7%) patients were identified with HCV as the only identifiable etiology of cirrhosis, while 45 (14.4%) patients were identified with excessive alcohol consumption as the only identifiable etiology of cirrhosis. Only 1 patient was identified with documentation of three etiologies of cirrhosis: HCV, chronic HBV, and excessive alcohol consumption. The year of the LR-3 scan appeared evenly distributed from 2013 to 2016; only 6 LR-3 scans were identified in 2017, a consequence of the cut-off date imposed on the analytic cohort. At the time of the LR-3 scan, most patients were found with AFP values measuring less than or equal to 5 (39.0%) or between 5 and 10 (15.7%); 28.6%of patients had unknown AFP values at the time of the LR-3 scan. ALBI scores at the time of the LR-3 scan were primarily grade 1 (15.0%) or grade 2 (42.8%), i.e., lowest mortality risk and intermediate mortality risk from cirrhosis, respectively. A total of 153 (48.9%) LR-3 scans contained a single lesion assigned an LR score, with 50.8% having multiple lesions assigned as LR-3 or lower. Most lesions were localized to the right

    Table 1. Baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics of the analytic cohort and associations with risk of progression to LR-3 to LR-5 within one year (univariate survival analyses with interval censoring)

    lobe of the liver (75.4%) and described as hypervascular (85.6%). Most lesions were subcentimeter (50.5%).Liver biopsy data were available for twenty of the 313 patients included in our analysis. Among patients with biopsy data after LR progression, HCC was confirmed in 10 of 11 cases; no evidence of carcinoma was detected in one case. Among patients with biopsy data after LR-3 identification, no evidence of malignancy was detected in 8 of 9 cases; atypical HCC was detected in one case.

    Univariate survival analyses with interval censoring are presented in Table 1. Compared to women, men appeared twice as likely to have imaging with LR progression (HR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.14-3.54;P-value = 0.02).Earlier year of LR-3 scan (1 = 2013, 2 = 2014, 3 = 2015, 4 = 2016, 5 = 2017) and higher AFP values at the time of LR-3 scan (1 = less than 5, 2 = 5-10, 3 = 11-20, 4 = 20+) were significantly associated with increased risk of LR progression. Older age at LR-3 scan appeared associated with increased risk of LR progression, but the estimate of effect did not reach the level of statistical significance (P-trend = 0.06). Similarly, there was the suggestion that HCV was associated with increased risk of LR progression (HR = 1.63, 95%CI: 0.99-2.68;Pvalue = 0.054), but the level of statistical significance was not met. The risk of LR progression among those with both HCV and excessive alcohol consumption was HR = 2.05 (95%CI: 1.20-3.50;P-value = 0.0089)when compared to those without both vices. The risk of LR progression among those with both HCV and excessive alcohol consumption compared to those with only excessive alcohol consumption was HR = 2.56(95%CI: 1.08-6.10;P-value = 0.0033). The risk of LR progression among those with both HCV and excessive alcohol consumption compared to those with only HCV was HR = 1.75 (95%CI: 0.92-3.35;P-value = 0.088).The increasing size of the identified lesion in the LR-3 scan was associated with an increased risk of LR progression (Wald globalP-value = 0.009;P-trend = 0.0002). This was attenuated only slightly when limited to solitary lesions (Wald globalP-value = 0.18;P-trend = 0.01). Of note, despite reaching the level of statistical significance for possible inclusion in the final model, the size of lesion was ineligible for inclusion given that it is a feature of the outcome (i.e., LR assignment). No association with LR progression was seen with LR-3 scan type (MRvs. CT), location of LR-3 observation, and vascularity of the LR-3 observation.

    Backwards elimination [Table 2] yielded a multivariate model containing variables for sex, age at LR-3 scan(trend), and year of LR-3 scan (trend). The variable for a combination of HCV and excessive alcohol consumption was the last eliminated in the backwards elimination process, with a globalP-trend of 0.059.As was seen in the univariate models, men, older age, and earlier year of scan were associated with increased risk of LR progression within one year. The estimate of effect for the association between sex and the outcome of interest appeared only mildly attenuated in the multivariate analysis compared to the univariate analysis.

    No statistically significant differences by sex were noted for the following variables: year of scan, age, race,AFP, ALBI, scan modality, singlevs. multiple lesions, site of lesion, size of lesion, vascularity. Men were more likely to have chronic HCV than women (54.7%vs. 33.95%, respectively,χ2P-value = 0.0005), were more likely to have a history of excessive alcohol consumption (40.6%vs. 19.8%,P-value = 0.0001), and were less likely to have a diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis (2.6%vs. 11.6%,P-value = 0.003) [Table 3]. The multivariate model of potential variables and increased risk of LR progression restricted to men was generated after backwards elimination and is presented in Table 4. As with the model containing both sexes,age at LR-3 scan and year of LR-3 scan are associated with increased risk of LR progression among the male-only cohort. The male-only model, however, also contains variables for race and AFP level. Among men, the unadjusted risk of LR progression among those with both a history of alcohol abuse and chronic HCV was significantly increased compared to those who did not have both vices (HR = 1.81, 95%CI: 1.01-3.24;P= 0.048). This was slightly attenuated when adjusted for age and year of LR-3 scan (HR = 1.80,95%CI: 0.99-3.24;P-value = 0.052). Analyses restricted to female patients in this cohort were hampered by insufficient numbers. Analyses evaluating the association with alcohol abuse and chronic HCV with LR

    Table 2. Multivariate survival analyses with interval censoring, association of baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics, and risk of progression of LR-3 to LR-5 lesions after backwards elimination

    DISCUSSION

    This retrospective study represents an early exploration of potential clinical and radiographic characteristics that may inform risk of an intermediate hepatic observation (LR-3) progression to that of a definitive HCC(LR-5) within a cohort of patients at risk of HCC. Characteristics selected for evaluation were those able to be abstracted readily from text-based clinical documentation and from laboratory results available within the medical record. This was imposed for practical purposes in consideration of future development of an LR lesion risk stratification tool readily usable by a clinician with access to a patient’s electronic medical record.

    The clinical characteristics that appear significantly associated with increased risk of LR progression are earlier year of scan, older age, and male sex. The association between earlier years of scan and increased risk of LR progression is potentially attributable to changes to the LI-RADS criteria over time, with improved diagnostic performance noted in later versions[3,9]. The major imaging features used to assign an LI-RADS score are arterial-phase hyperenhancement, observation diameter, washout appearance, threshold growth,and capsule appearance (added in later versions)[1,10]. In LI-RADS v2011 criteria[11,12], an LR-5 observation was defined as either (1) an observation 1.0 to 1.9 cm in size with arterial phase hyperenhancement, delayed phase hyperenhancement and a greater than 1.0 cm diameter increase in one year or (2) an observation greater or equal to 2 cm with either delayed phase hyperenhancement or greater than 1.0 cm diameter increase in one year. In LI-RADS v2013 and v2014, the LR-5 category was modified to include separate categorizations of LR-5T (treated), LR-M (features suggestive of non-HCC malignancy), and LR-5V (mass with definite tumor in vein). Other significant changes included the addition of the presence of a capsule to the list of major features and a new definition of threshold growth, defined as diameter of observation at least 0.5 cm in size with either a greater than 50% increase within 6 months or a greater than 100% increase within 12 months. The LI-RADS version 2017[13,14]introduced new categories, including LR-NC (not categorizable) and LR-TIV (previously LR-5V) for LR-5 with tumor in vein. The definition of threshold growth was further altered, defined as size increase of observation by at least 0.5 cm and greater than 50%increase in size in 6 months or greater than 100% increase in size when reimaged after 6 months, or previously unseen but detected on subsequent imaging within a 2-year period and size greater than 1.0 cm.Additional alterations were made in v2018[15,16], with respect to the categorization of small observations (i.e.,1.0-1.9 cm) with arterial hyperenhancement: those with non-peripheral washout were now classified as LR-5, whereas previously had been classified as LR-5us if seen on antecedent surveillance ultrasound (US) or as LR-4 for all other observations. The definition for threshold growth was altered again, redefined as a 50%increase in diameter size within 6 months. The version of LI-RADS criteria used has significant implications in LR categorization for a particular scan. For example, in Chernyaket al.[4], significant discordance of LR categorizations was noted when scans for 398 patients were evaluated using both version 2017 and version 2018. A total of 40.1% of observations classified as LR-4 based on version 2017 criteria were upgraded to LR-5 based on version 2018 criteria; 2.0% of observations classified as LR-5 based on version 2017 criteria were downgraded to LR-4 based on version 2018 criteria. This would have implications for future analyses of LR progression if study time frames were to span periods of time with more than one LI-RADS criteria version utilized. As updates to the LI-RADS criteria will be continually refined and updated with updates planned every 3 to 5 years[17], future risk stratification models of LR progression would ideally include onlyimaging interpreted using the most recent LI-RADS algorithm version or with more remote scans retroactively interpreted using the most recent LI-RADS version. Most scans in our analysis were assigned an LR category based on version 2014 criteria, and likely does not completely explain the association with earlier year of scan and increased risk of LR progression. Other potential explanations for the association between earlier year of scan and increased risk of LR progression are improvements in CT and MR imaging technology over time and greater familiarity and expertise by radiologists as more time elapsed since the introduction of LI-RADS version 2011.

    Table 3. Differences in clinical and radiographic characteristics at the time of LR-3 scan stratified by sex

    Table 4. Multivariate survival analyses with interval censoring, association of baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics, and risk of progression of LR-3 to LR-5 lesions after backwards elimination, males only

    Older age and male sex are both known risk factors of hepatocellular carcinoma[18,19]and were seen as associations with increased risk of LR progression in our analysis. Based on SEER registry data from 1992 to 2013[18], the incidence of HCC increases with each 5-year age range starting at age 20s before decreasing slightly after age 80. The increased risk of HCC among men compared to women is noted across all age ranges, with the male predominance attenuated at older ages but still persistent. The increased risk among men may be attributed to some extent to population-level differences in HCV exposure and alcohol use, but as in our small retrospective analysis, these differences in exposure do not appear to completely explain the differences in risk of HCC. A protective effect of female hormones has been theorized as a potential explanation to explain the male predominance of HCC[18,20,21]. There appears to be the suggestion of a synergistic effect with alcohol use and HCV infection and LR progression, similar to the synergism observed between alcohol and HCV on the risk of HCC[19,22]. Further exploration of this potential association with the risk of LR progression does require larger numbers. Established risk factors for HCC are likely to be risk factors for LR progression, but small numbers of individuals in our retrospective cohort with HBV infection, autoimmune hepatitis, cardiac cirrhosis,etc., preclude further analysis. Larger, more heterogeneous cohorts are needed for further evaluation.

    Risk factors for LR progression have been explored in a few studies. In Shropshireet al.[23], ancillary radiographic features (e.g., restricted diffusion, hepatobiliary phase hypointensity, mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity) were not associated with LR-3 observation progression to either an LR-4 or LR-5 observation (LI-RADS v2017). In Cannellaet al.[24], risk of progression to LR-5 or LRM among 109 LR-2,LR-3, and LR-4 observations did not appear associated with age, male gender, Child-Pugh status, AFP level,size of observation, or treatment with direct-acting antivirals among patients with viral hepatitis. The strongest association with LR progression was a more advanced LR score and presence of a non-peripheral“washout”. Using a subset of the cohort utilized in our analysis, Ojedaet al.[25], found no association between index exam modality (i.e., CT or MR) and risk of LR-3 to LR-5 progression, controlling for age and sex. Our analysis is the largest study to date of LR-3 observations and is one of the few studies to concentrate on more clinical predictors of LR progression. Our study was still limited by small numbers and did not include any ancillary radiographic features. Larger cohorts and the addition of more radiographic or ancillary features to risk stratification models could be helpful in future modeling efforts of risk of LR progression. Additional studies on this topic are warranted, with a potential goal of creating riskstratification algorithms incorporating clinical variables to guide surveillance frequency or subsequent interventions for patients with LR-3 lesions.

    The retrospective nature of the analysis is a significant limitation to this study, with the validity of the results likely affected. Excluded from the analyses were a significant number of patients who only had one imaging study within the University of Washington system, which does represent a significant source of selection bias. Most of the imaging studies were conducted at the University of Washington, with established imaging protocols utilized. While this does not guarantee uniformity of protocol and operator technique, it presumably lessens the variability. There were, however, some radiographic reports suggested that the imaging study has been conducted elsewhere and overread at our institution; this raises concern for increased variability in protocol and operator technique. As discussed previously, the change in LI-RADS criteria over time since the introduction of the initial algorithm represents a significant source of misclassification. The lack of independent review to confirm LI-RADS assignments and the lack of confirmation that the LR-3 observation in question represented the same lesion in subsequent scans are also potential sources of misclassification. Multiple LR-3 observations were allowed on the LR-3 scan, which does limit the evaluation of observation-specific characteristics, e.g., observation size, ancillary features, and their contribution to the risk of LR progression. The accuracy of the data abstracted from clinical documentation, e.g., cirrhosis etiology, depends on the accurate recording by the author of the documentation. While the presence or absence of HCV or HBV referenced in a progress note is likely accurate and can be confirmed by serologic values, information such as alcohol use is dependent on patient report and author interpretation. This also raises concern for exposure misclassification. As already referenced, a lack of sufficient numbers precluded stratified analyses and limited interpretation of more rare potential risk factors (e.g., chronic HBV infection), which also represents a significant limitation in our analysis. As already referenced, the lack of diversity among the patients included in this study limits the generalizability to larger populations.

    In conclusion, our retrospective analysis is an early exploration of clinical and radiographic characteristics that may be associated with the risk of progression of an indeterminate liver observation to hepatocellular carcinoma. Risk stratification modeling involving characteristics available in the electronic medical record could be used to identify higher-risk intermediate lesions and prompt earlier intervention, biopsy for confirmation, or more frequent imaging. Earlier intervention or monitoring of such lesions would hopefully improve overall outcomes, but this also requires further evaluation.

    DECLARATIONS

    Authors’ contributions

    Data abstraction, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript author: Hannan LM Contributed to conception and design and substantively reviewed and revised manuscript: Harris WP Substantively reviewed and revised manuscript: Park JO Performed data acquisition and made substantial contributions to the design of the study: Bhargava P,Ojeda PI, Mieloszyk RJ

    Availability of data and materials

    Not applicable.

    Financial support and sponsorship

    None.

    Conflicts of interest

    All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

    Ethical approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable

    Copyright

    ? The Author(s) 2021.

    亚洲18禁久久av| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 免费观看在线日韩| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产精品无大码| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 男人舔奶头视频| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 黄片wwwwww| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 亚洲成人av在线免费| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 国产精品野战在线观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 久久精品人妻少妇| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| av在线观看视频网站免费| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 亚洲av成人av| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 免费观看人在逋| 欧美zozozo另类| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 在线播放无遮挡| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| av在线蜜桃| 91av网一区二区| 十八禁网站免费在线| 精品午夜福利在线看| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 国产精品一及| 波多野结衣高清作品| 日本免费a在线| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 俺也久久电影网| 99热6这里只有精品| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 久久久久国产网址| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 此物有八面人人有两片| 少妇丰满av| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 丝袜喷水一区| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 精品福利观看| 午夜福利高清视频| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 亚洲第一电影网av| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 18+在线观看网站| 久久久久久久久中文| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 天堂网av新在线| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 少妇的逼水好多| 91在线观看av| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 亚洲av美国av| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 欧美zozozo另类| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 亚洲综合色惰| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 九九热线精品视视频播放| eeuss影院久久| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 九九在线视频观看精品| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 特级一级黄色大片| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 观看美女的网站| 免费看日本二区| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 亚洲自拍偷在线| 综合色丁香网| 亚洲第一电影网av| 久久热精品热| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 我要搜黄色片| 日韩中字成人| 天堂网av新在线| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 九九热线精品视视频播放| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 久久久精品94久久精品| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 成人av在线播放网站| 内地一区二区视频在线| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 天美传媒精品一区二区| av卡一久久| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 久久久久久伊人网av| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产三级在线视频| 国产乱人视频| 亚洲成人久久性| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 1000部很黄的大片| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 国产高潮美女av| 午夜福利高清视频| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 国产成人91sexporn| 综合色av麻豆| av视频在线观看入口| 亚洲无线在线观看| 搞女人的毛片| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 亚洲四区av| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 少妇高潮的动态图| 在线a可以看的网站| av天堂中文字幕网| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| h日本视频在线播放| 97热精品久久久久久| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 色综合站精品国产| 丰满的人妻完整版| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 69人妻影院| 嫩草影院入口| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 久久久精品大字幕| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国产免费男女视频| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 97在线视频观看| 高清毛片免费看| 久久热精品热| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 97超碰精品成人国产| 日本 av在线| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 黄色一级大片看看| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 久久人妻av系列| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 97超碰精品成人国产| 香蕉av资源在线| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 色综合色国产| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 午夜福利高清视频| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 不卡一级毛片| 精品久久久久久久末码| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 久久久成人免费电影| 久99久视频精品免费| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 永久网站在线| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| av黄色大香蕉| 最好的美女福利视频网| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 1024手机看黄色片| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 搡老岳熟女国产| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 色播亚洲综合网| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 99热这里只有精品一区| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 日本一二三区视频观看| 黄色一级大片看看| 舔av片在线| 99热这里只有是精品50| 亚洲av.av天堂| 性欧美人与动物交配| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 午夜影院日韩av| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 日本黄大片高清| 亚洲18禁久久av| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 亚洲av一区综合| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 一a级毛片在线观看| 日韩高清综合在线| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 亚洲无线在线观看| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 久久久久久久久大av| 在现免费观看毛片| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 久久久午夜欧美精品| av在线播放精品| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 黄色日韩在线| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 黄色一级大片看看| 黑人高潮一二区| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 亚洲18禁久久av| 国产视频内射| av福利片在线观看| 色综合站精品国产| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 亚洲不卡免费看| av在线蜜桃| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 六月丁香七月| 18+在线观看网站| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 在线免费十八禁| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 美女黄网站色视频| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 色综合色国产| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 精品久久久久久成人av| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 毛片女人毛片| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 天堂动漫精品| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 嫩草影院精品99| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 成人av在线播放网站| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产av不卡久久| 91精品国产九色| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 久久久久久伊人网av| 成人二区视频| 亚洲成人久久性| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 搞女人的毛片| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 日本免费a在线| 老女人水多毛片| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 久久久久久久久大av| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 黄色日韩在线| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| www日本黄色视频网| 99热全是精品| 久久精品91蜜桃| 色播亚洲综合网| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 色综合站精品国产| 亚洲性久久影院| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 搞女人的毛片| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 久久久国产成人免费| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 成人二区视频| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 九九热线精品视视频播放| 在线播放无遮挡| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 亚洲最大成人中文| 中国美女看黄片| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 简卡轻食公司| 午夜影院日韩av| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲av成人av| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| av免费在线看不卡| 51国产日韩欧美| 免费看光身美女| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 久久午夜福利片| 欧美+日韩+精品| 精品久久久久久久久av| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 日本黄色片子视频| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 午夜精品在线福利| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| av免费在线看不卡| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 日韩中字成人| 欧美3d第一页| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 看片在线看免费视频| 免费高清视频大片| 成人二区视频| 午夜影院日韩av| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看 | 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 成人二区视频| 深夜a级毛片| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| av福利片在线观看| 成人无遮挡网站| 亚洲色图av天堂| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 国产成人a区在线观看| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 一本精品99久久精品77| 黑人高潮一二区| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产av不卡久久| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 十八禁网站免费在线| 国产成人a区在线观看| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 97超碰精品成人国产| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 97超碰精品成人国产| 日韩欧美免费精品| 欧美+日韩+精品| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 在线观看66精品国产| videossex国产| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| eeuss影院久久| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 色吧在线观看| 99热精品在线国产| a级毛片a级免费在线| 伦精品一区二区三区| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 在线a可以看的网站| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 日本五十路高清| 成人二区视频| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 久久久久久久久中文| 亚洲av一区综合| 三级经典国产精品| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 日本黄大片高清| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产三级在线视频| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 美女高潮的动态| 精品国产三级普通话版| 国产高清三级在线| 97在线视频观看| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| av.在线天堂| 午夜激情欧美在线| 搡老岳熟女国产| av黄色大香蕉| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 六月丁香七月| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 久久热精品热| 久久草成人影院| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 午夜福利18| 内地一区二区视频在线| 99热只有精品国产| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 禁无遮挡网站| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 99久国产av精品| av免费在线看不卡| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 成年版毛片免费区| 久久久色成人| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 精品一区二区免费观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 久久精品人妻少妇| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 亚洲av美国av| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 免费搜索国产男女视频|