• <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 ?

    Diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging and semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in salivary gland tumors

    2023-03-17 02:31:06ErkanMuratBeyhan
    World Journal of Radiology 2023年1期

    Erkan G?k?e,Murat Beyhan

    Erkan G?k?e,Murat Beyhan,Department of Radiology,Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University,Faculty of Medicine,Tokat 60100,Turkey

    Abstract BACKGROUND Increased use of functional magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)methods such as diffusion-weighted imaging(DWI)and dynamic contrast-enhanced(DCE)MRI consisting of sequential contrast series,allows us to obtain more information on the microstructure,cellularity,interstitial distance,and vascularity of tumors,which has increased the discrimination power for benign and malignant salivary gland tumors(SGTs).In the last few years,quantitative DCE MRI data containing T1 perfusion parameters(Ktrans,Kep and Ve),were reported to contribute to the differentiation of benign or malignant subtypes in SGTs.AIM To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of DWI and semiquantitative and quantitative perfusion MRI parameters in SGTs.METHODS Diffusion MRI[apparent diffusion coefficient(ADC)value]with a 1.5 T MR machine,semiquantitative perfusion MRI[time intensity curve(TIC)pattern],and quantitative perfusion MRI examinations(Ktrans,Kep and Ve)of 73 tumors in 67 patients with histopathological diagnosis performed from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively evaluated.In the ADC value and semiquantitative perfusion MRI measurements,cystic components of the tumors were not considered,and the region of interest(ROI)was manually placed through the widest axial section of the tumor.TIC patterns were divided into four groups:Type A = Tpeak >120 s;type B = Tpeak ≤ 120 s,washout ratio(WR)≥ 30%;type C = Tpeak ≤ 120 s,WR <30%;and type D = flat TIC.For the quantitative perfusion MRI analysis,a 3D ROI was placed in the largest solid component of the tumor,and the Ktrans,Kep and Ve values were automatically generated.RESULTS The majority of SGTs were located in the parotid glands(86.3%).Of all the SGTs,68.5% were benign and 31.5% were malignant.Significant differences were found for ADC values among pleomorphic adenomas(PMAs),Warthin's tumors(WTs),and malignant tumors(MTs)(P <0.001).PMAs had type A and WTs had type B TIC pattern while the vast majority of MTs and other benign tumors(OBTs)(54.5% and 45.5%,respectively)displayed type C TIC pattern.PMAs showed no washout,while the highest mean WR was observed in WTs(59% ± 11%).Ktrans values of PMAs,WTs,OBTs,and MTs were not significantly different.Kep values of PMAs and WTs were significantly different from those of OBTs and MTs.Mean Ve value of WTs was significantly different from those of PMAs,OBTs,and MTs(P <0.001).CONCLUSION The use of quantitative DCE parameters along with diffusion MRI and semiquantitative contrastenhanced MRI in SGTs could improve the diagnostic accuracy.

    Key Words:Diffusion-weighted imaging;Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging;Magnetic resonance imaging;Perfusion imaging;Salivary gland tumor;Tumor

    INTRODUCTION

    Salivary gland tumors(SGTs)account for about 2.0%-6.5% of all head and neck tumors.Approximately 70% of them originate from the parotid glands,and a small number have submandibular,sublingual,and minor salivary gland origins.While the majority of tumors from the parotid glands are benign,malignancies are more common in those located in other glands.Preoperative characterization of SGTs is important for treatment planning.The choice of surgery method for SGTs is closely associated with the histology of the tumor.Diagnosis is mostly based on combined evaluation of clinical features and findings from physical examinations,imaging and cytological observations.Fine-needle aspiration biopsy(FNAB)is the most commonly used method for cytological examinations but complex pathologies can result in false positives and false negatives in malignant tumors(MTs)[1,2].Conventional magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)is very useful for identifying the tumor location,morphology,extension,and its association with the nerves and inner structure[1-3].However,diagnosing MTs and benign tumors(BTs)by conventional MRI can be difficult due to overlapping findings[1,2,4].In recent years,an increase has been reported in diagnostic accuracy in SGTs for distinguishing between MTs and BTs with the use of diffusion-weighted imaging(DWI)and dynamic contrast-enhanced(DCE)MRI techniques[1,5-9].DCE MRI is used to track an exogenous,paramagnetic contrast agent in tissues and has been a powerful tool in the characterization of tumor hemodynamics[1,3,10,11].As a semiquantitative method in DCE MRI,patterns have been established by measuring time to peak(Tpeak)and washout ratio(WR)on the time intensity curve(TIC)[1,3].Tpeakis closely related to microvessel count while WR reflects the stromal cellularity grade.On quantitative DCE MRI,on the other hand,perfusion parameters such as Ktrans[volume transfer constant between blood plasma and the extracellular extravascular space(EES)],Kep(flux rate constant between the EES and plasma),and Ve(EES fractional volume)are used[1,3].Although there are many studies dealing with diffusion and semiquantitative DCE MRIs in SGTs,the number of quantitative MRI studies is limited[12-15].In the present study,the diagnostic value of diffusion MRI and semiquantitative and quantitative perfusion MRI parameters was evaluated in SGTs.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Patients

    The study was conducted retrospectively following approval by the local ethics committee(20-KAEK-105).A total of 67 patients with tumors originating from or involving the salivary glands were included.The study included patients who had swelling of the face or in the salivary glands,who were subjected to MRI,diffusion MRI,and perfusion MRI examinations at our hospital between April 2017 and February 2021 and who were diagnosed histopathologically after FNAB,Tru-cut biopsy,or surgical removal.For this study,patients whose neck and maxillofacial MRI examination reports included the description of a mass in the salivary glands were surveyed in picture archiving and communication systems.A total of 33 patients were excluded:2 patients with intra-lesion hemorrhage due to FNAB before the MRI examination,16 patients who had contrast-enhanced MRI but did not have perfusion MRI series,and 15 patients whose diagnosis was not confirmed histopathologically.Thus,a total of 73 MTs and BTs,which originated from major and minor salivary glands in 67 patients,were included in the study(Figure 1).

    MRI scanning and measurements

    MRI was performed on a 1.5 T superconducting MRI system[General Electric(GE)Signa Explorer Software Version 25;GE Healthcare,Milwaukee,WI,United States,2016]with head and neck array coils.Routine MRI sequences included axial T1-weighted[time to repetition/time to echo(TR/TE),456 ms/8.1 ms],in phase axial T2-weighted(TR/TE,3711 ms/82.8 ms),sagittal T2-weighted(TR/TE,4499 ms/88.2 ms),and coronal T2-weighted(TR/TE,4380 ms/84.6 ms).DCE MRI was performed with a T1-weighted 3D fast spoiled gradient echo sequence[TR/TE/time to inversion,3.8 ms/1.3 ms/15 ms;flip angle,20°].The contrast agent Gd-DTPA(Dotarem,Guerbet,France)was injected after the fourth dynamic sequence acquisition at a rate of 2.0 mL/sviathe right antecubital vein.The contrast agent was administered at a dose of 0.2 mmoL/kg body weight.Immediately after the injection of the contrast agent,a 20 mL saline flush was carried out at the same injection rate.In total,18-21 dynamic sequence acquisitions with 30 dynamic images per sequence were performed with total scanning time ranging from 3 min and 11 s to 5 min and 24 s.The location,morphology,and internal structure of the tumor were evaluated by conventional MRI(Figures 2A and B,3A and B,4A and B,5A and B).

    DWI was performed using a multislice echo-planar single-shot spin-echo sequence,on the axial plane(TR/TE = 5476 ms/95.4 ms,field of view = 26 cm,matrix = 96 × 128,section thickness = 4-5 mm,and interslice gap = 4 mm).Three diffusion gradients were applied sequentially in the x,y,and z directions withbvalues of 0 and 1000 s/mm2(Figure 2B).The acquisition time varied from 60 s to 120 s.The apparent diffusion coefficient(ADC)maps were generated automatically.

    "GE Advantage Windows Workstation 4.7" was used to determine ADC values on diffusion MRI and to perform measurements in semiquantitative and quantitative perfusion MRI.Image analysis and region of interest(ROI)measurements were carried out on a consensus basis by two neuroradiologists(Erkan G?k?e and Murat Beyhan with more than 12 and 7 years of work experience,respectively)who were not aware of the clinical status of the patients.On ADC value measurements,cystic components of the tumors were not considered,the ROI was manually placed through the widest axial section of the tumor,and the ADC value was determined as mm2/s(Figures 2C,3C,4C and 5C).Semiquantitative analysis of DCE MRI was based on TIC(Figures 2D and E,3D and E,4D and E,5D and E).Tpeakwas measured as the time from the point where the lesion began to show contrast enhancement to the point with the highest level of contrast enhancement.TICs were evaluated in four different categories based on Yabuuchiet al[10]:Type A = Tpeak>120 s;type B = Tpeak≤ 120 s,WR ≥ 30%;type C = Tpeak≤ 120 s,WR <30%;and type D = flat TIC.To confirm the accuracy of TIC and perfusion biomarker analyses,ROIs were drawn in a way to avoid the vascular and cystic parts of the tumors.Quantitative perfusion DCE MRI parameters were measured using the Tofts kinetic model[16].For quantitative perfusion MRI analysis,a 3D ROI was placed in the largest solid component of the tumor,and the Ktrans,Kepand Vevalues were generated automatically(Figures 2F-H,3F-H,4F-H,5F-H).

    Figure 1 Patient inclusion and exclusion flowchart.

    Figure 2 A 72-year-old male patient with a Warthin’s tumor in the right parotid gland.A:On axial plane T2-weighted image,a mildly hypointense(compared to the gland),smooth-contoured mass localized in the center of the parotid gland is observed;B:On the diffusion-weighted image,the mass appears to be hyperintense;C:ADC value was 0.8 × 10-3 mm2/s on the apparent diffusion coefficient map;D:The mass is hyperperfused on color-coded perfusion image;E:Type B time intensity curve shows a washout ratio of 75%;F,G,and H:Ktrans,Kep,and Ve values on quantitative perfusion images were 0.617 min-1,6.438 min-1,and 0.073,respectively.ADC:Apparent diffusion coefficient.

    Figure 3 A 38-year-old male patient with a pleomorphic adenoma in the right submandibular gland.A:On sagittal plane T2-weighted image,a hyperintense(compared to the gland),smooth,slightly lobule-contoured mass is observed;B:On contrast-enhanced axial plane T1-weighted image,intense contrastenhancement is observed in the mass;C:The mass is hyperintense on the apparent diffusion coefficient map due to facilitated diffusion(ADC value:1.7 × 10-3 mm2/s);D:The mass is hypoperfused on color coded perfusion image;E:The tumor has type A time intensity curve;F,G,and H:Ktrans,Kep,and Ve values on quantitative perfusion images were 0.211 min-1,0.383 min-1,and 0.593,respectively.ADC:Apparent diffusion coefficient.

    Figure 4 A 76-year-old female patient with diffuse large B cell lymphoma and a mass in the left submandibular gland region.A:On axial T2-weighted image,a smooth-contoured mass with homogeneous internal structure and an intensity similar to that of the submandibular gland is observed;B:Axial contrast-enhanced image shows the intense homogeneous contrast enhancement of the mass;C:On the apparent coefficient mapping image,the mass features prominent diffusion restriction(ADC value:0.6 × 10-3 mm2/s);D:The mass is hyperperfused on color coded perfusion image;E:Type B time intensity curve shows a 48% washout ratio;F,G,and H:Ktrans,Kep,and Ve values on quantitative perfusion images were 1.058 min-1,3.391 min-1,and 0.356,respectively.ADC:Apparent diffusion coefficient.

    Statistical analysis

    Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 18.0 software(IBM,Chicago,IL,United States)and MedCalc statistical software version 20.009(MedCalc software bvba,Ostend,Belgium).For each parameter,the conformity of the groups to the normal distribution was evaluated by the Shapiro-Wilk test,and the Levene test was used to evaluate the homogeneity of variances.Data are expressed as the mean ± SD or frequency and percent.One-way ANOVA was used for the groups with a normal distribution for comparison of the groups,and Bonferroni correction was applied in multiple comparisons.The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the groups that did not fit the normal distribution,and

    Bonferroni correction was applied in multiple comparisons.The area under curve(AUC),sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value(PPV),negative predictive value(NPV),and cut-off values of diagnostic parameters were calculated for each tumor group by performing receiver operating characteristic curve(ROC)analysis.

    RESULTS

    The age range of the 67 patients(40 male and 27 female)included in the study was 12-93 years(mean age = 56.9 ± 15.8 years).One patient had three lesions in the salivary glands,while four patients had two and the remaining 62 had one lesion.Thus,73 lesions in 67 patients were evaluated.The majority of the lesions(86.3%)were located in the parotid glands,while a small number(4.1%)originated from minor salivary glands.The locations,numbers,and frequencies of SGTs are shown in Table 1.Approximately two-thirds of the lesions(68.5%)were benign(Figures 2 and 3),and one-third(31.5%)was malignant(Figures 4 and 5).Warthin's tumors(WTs)(36.0%)were the most common BTs,followed by pleomorphic adenomas(PMAs)(28.0%).Of the MTs,squamous cell cancer(47.8%),adenoid cystic cancers(13.0%),and malignant lymphomas(13.0%)were the most common.The numbers of benign and malignant SGTs are provided in Table 2.The ADC values of PMAs were significantly higher than those of WTs,other benign tumors(OBTs),and MTs(P<0.001).However,there was no significant difference in ADC values for OBTs,WTs,and MTs.Significant differences were not found for ADC values of all BTs and MTs.The mean ADC values of SGTs are shown in Table 3.

    Figure 5 A 79-year-old male patient with squamous cell cancer in the left parotid gland.A:On axial plane T1-weighted image,an irregularly contoured,hypointense mass involving skin and subcutaneous tissues is observed;B:On axial contrast-enhanced T1-weighted image,the mass shows an intense heterogeneous contrast enhancement;C:ADC value on the apparent diffusion coefficient map was 1.1 × 10-3 mm2/s;D:The mass is heterogeneously hyperperfused on color coded perfusion image;E:Type C time intensity curve shows a 10% washout ratio;F,G,and H:Ktrans,Kep,and Ve values on quantitative perfusion images were 0.993 min-1,1.659 min-1,and 0.612,respectively.ADC:Apparent diffusion coefficient.

    Table 1 Locations,numbers,and frequencies of salivary gland tumors

    An evaluation of Tpeakvalues of semiquantitative perfusion MRI parameters revealed that PMAs reached Tpeaksignificantly later(mean Tpeak= 202.74 ± 21.48 s)than WTs,OBTs,and MTs while the difference between OBTs and MTs for Tpeakvalues was not significant.WTs reached Tpeaksignificantly earlier than other tumors.With regard to WR,no washout was observed in PMAs.WTs had the highest mean WR value(59% ± 11%),which was significantly different from the mean WR values of MTs and OBTs.PMAs had type A and WTs had type B TIC pattern,while the majority of MTs and OBTs(54.5% and 45.5%,respectively)exhibited type C TIC pattern.Semiquantitative DCE MRI parameters of SGTs are provided in Table 4.

    For quantitative perfusion MRI parameters,Ktransvalues of PMAs,WTs,OBTs,and MTs were not significantly different.The Kepvalue of WTs,on the other hand,was significantly higher than those of other tumors(P<0.001).For Vevalue,WTs and OBTs differed significantly from PMAs and MTs(P<0.001).An evaluation of all BTs and MTs showed significant differences for Kepand Vevalues(P<0.05)but not for Ktransvalues.Quantitative DCE MRI parameters of SGTs are shown in Table 3.

    The results of ROC analysis and cut-off values used for the parameters of DWI,semiquantitative and quantitative MRI of PMAs,WTs,and malignant SGTs are given in Table 5.

    Table 2 Numbers of benign and malignant salivary gland tumors

    Table 3 Mean ADC values and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging parameters of different histopathologic salivary gland tumors

    Table 4 Semiquantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging parameters of different histopathologic salivary gland tumors

    Table 5 Comparison of pleomorphic adenomas,Warthin’s tumors,and malignant salivary gland tumors by ROC analysis using ADC,Tpeak,Ktrans,Kep,and Ve values

    DISCUSSION

    In recent years,diffusion MRI has been an essential complement to conventional sequences in the radiological evaluation of SGTs[1,3,6-10,13-15,17,18].Diffusion MRI allows us to evaluate the cellularity in tissues and the changes that physiological processes create on microstructural features.As malignant or benign SGTs include a highly heterogeneous group,their ADC values could also be highly variable.In cell-rich tumors such as WT and lymphoma,ADC values are low,but tumors containing hetero-geneous components such as PMA have higher ADC values[1,13].In many DWI studies involving SGTs,ADC values were reported to be useful in distinguishing BTs and MTs[6-8,17,19-21].However,there are also studies reporting that DWI was not sufficient to make this distinction but ADC values could be useful in distinguishing some subtypes of MTs or BTs[10,22-24].An evaluation of mean ADC values of all BTs and MTs in the present study showed that ADC values of BTs(0.98 × 10-3± 0.43 mm2/s)and MTs(0.95 × 10-3± 0.31 mm2/s)were similar and did not differ significantly.However,when specific tumoral subgroups were evaluated,significant differences were found in the mean ADC values among PMAs,WTs,and MTs(P<0.001).In a ROC analysis using an ADC cut-off value of >1.1 × 10-3mm2/s for PMAs,the AUC,sensitivity,and specificity were 97.7%,100%,and 89.8%,respectively.A ROC analysis of WTs using an ADC cut-off value of ≤ 0.8 × 10-3mm2/s,on the other hand,resulted in AUC,sensitivity,and specificity values of 74.2%,94.4%,and 58.2%,respectively.These values were 54.1%,78.3%,and 44.0%,respectively,for MTs with an ADC cut-off value of >0.7 × 10-3mm2/s.In the present study,the mean ADC value of malignant lymphomas was 0.56 × 10-3± 0.05 mm2/s,which was well below the average ADC value of all MTs.This finding indicated that diffusion MRI could be more useful in distinguishing the subgroups within both BTs and MTs than contributing to a more general distinction between MTs and BTs.

    In addition to diffusion MRI,the parameters of semiquantitative DCE MRI(TIC patterns)have also been frequently used in recent years for the differential diagnosis of SGTs[9,12,20,25,26].On DCE MRI,TIC is obtained from signal intensity changes before the contrast agent administration,during the transition of contrast agent from the capillary bed to extravascular-intercellular distance,and during the washing of contrast agent from the tissue[1,18].TIC patterns are correlated with tumor cellularity and vascularity[1,5,18,27].PMAs have progressive contrast-enhancement due to low microvessel count and cellularity-stromal grade,and their washout patterns are mostly negative and,to a lesser degree,in the form of a plateau[1,27].In the present study,type A TIC pattern(curve pattern with progression towards the late phases)was observed in all PMAs.Tpeakvalues ranged from 161.80 s to 251.70 s.The average Tpeakvalue of PMAs(202.74 ± 21.48 s)was significantly longer compared to the Tpeakvalues of all other SGTs.In ROC analysis of PMAs using a cut-off value of Tpeak>120 s,AUC,sensitivity,specificity,PPV,and NPV were 94.7%,100%,89.8%,70.0%,and 100%,respectively.WTs feature rapid contrast enhancement and washout due to their high microvessel count and cellularity-stromal grade.In the present study,type B TIC pattern(Tpeak≤ 120 s,WR ≥ 30%)was observed in all WTs.Tpeakvalues ranged from 10.80 s to 46.40 s,while WR varied from 31% to 75%.The mean Tpeakof WTs(20.26 ± 11.72 s)was significantly shorter than that of other parotid lesions.The average WR value of WTs(59.33% ± 10.99%)was significantly higher than that of any other tumors.In ROC analysis of WTs using a cut-off value of WR >43%,AUC,specificity,and PPV were quite high(98.1%,94.4%,and 90.9%,respectively).Due to their high microvessel count and lower cellularity-stromal grade,MTs have rapid enhancement but their washouts tend to be slower than those of WTs[1,27].In the present study,the mean Tpeakvalue of MTs(60.60 ± 55.78 s)was significantly shorter than the Tpeakvalue of PMAs.The mean WR value of MTs(18.48 ± 18.38%)was significantly lower than that of WTs,but was not different from the mean WR value of OBTs.In ROC analysis of MTs with cut-off values of Tpeak≤ 120 s and WR ≤ 49%,sensitivities were quite high(91.3% and 100%,respectively)but specificities were quite low(36.0% and 30.0%,respectively).A survey of semiquantitative DCE MRI studies in the literature showed that PMAs generally had type A pattern,while WTs had type B and MTs had type C TIC patterns[4,5,26].TIC patterns are considered to have a higher diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing subgroups in SGTs compared to their power to distinguish all BTs from MTs.However,it was mentioned that TIC patterns had higher specificity especially in PMAs and WTs while their specificity in MTs was lower[4,18,25,26].In their study with all SGTs,Lamet al[26]showed that all MTs except lymphomas showed type C TIC pattern(Tpeak<150 s and WR <30%),while 70% of lymphomas had type B TIC pattern(Tpeak<150 s and WR ≥ 30%).Similar to the findings of Lamet al[26],66.7% of lymphomas in the present study showed type B TIC pattern.However,unlike their findings,some other MTs showed types A,B,and D TIC patterns.There are also studies in the literature reporting that all WTs had type B TIC pattern[4,10,12].In accordance with their findings,100% of WTs in the present study featured type B TIC pattern.Subtypes of SGTs in the present study generally had similar TIC patterns to those reported in the literature.

    The literature contains several studies on quantitative DCE perfusion MRI parameters(Ktrans,Kep,and Ve)in SGTs[3,14,15,28].In these studies,mean Ktransvalues for PMAs ranged from 0.101 ± 0.069 min?1to 0.217 ± 0.036 min?1,mean Kepvalues from 0.245 ± 0.160 min?1to 0.567 ± 0.048 min?1,and mean Vevalues from 0.360 to 0.590 ± 0.478,while mean Ktransvalues for WTs varied between 0.105 min?1± 0.064 min?1and 0.464 ± 0.036 min?1,mean Kepvalues between 0.729 ± 0.112 min?1and 2.299 ± 1.312 min?1,and mean Vevalues between 0.1439 ± 0.093 and 0.272 ± 0.013.For MTs,mean Ktransvalues varied from 0.130± 0.035 min?1to 0.327 ± 0.030 min?1;mean Kepvalues from 0.463 ± 0.103 min?1to 0.784 ± 0.064 min?1;and mean Vevalues from 0.264 ± 0.119 to 0.445 ± 0.025.In all of these studies in the literature,the Ktransvalues of PMAs were lower than those of other SGTs[3,14,15,28].Xuet al[3]found that the mean Ktransvalue of PMAs was slightly different from that of WTs(P= 0.05).Yabuuchiet al[14]found no significant differences among Ktransvalues of other SGTs.Huanget al[15]found that the Ktransvalues of PMAs were significantly lower than those of other SGTs.Similar to the results of Yabuuchiet al[14],in our study,mean Ktransvalue of PMAs was the lowest among all SGTs,but it was not significantly different from those of other tumors.In the studies by Xuet al[3],Yabuuchiet al[14],and Huanget al[15],the mean Kepvalue was the lowest in PMAs and highest in WTs.Kepvalues of PMAs,WTs,and MTs in the studies of both Xuet al[3]and Yabuuchiet al[14]were significantly different.However,in the study by Huanget al[15],the Kepvalue of only WTs was significantly different from those of other tumors.In another study by Huanget al[28],significant differences were found in Kepvalues between WTs and PMAs,and between WTs and OBTs.Similar to the results of those studies in the literature,the mean Kepvalue in the present study was the lowest in PMAs and highest in WTs,and Kepvalues of PMAs and WTs were significantly different from those of other tumors[3,13,14,28].Xuet al[3],Yabuuchiet al[14],and Huanget al[15]found that mean Vevalues of WTs were significantly lower than those of other tumors.Similar to the results of their studies,the mean Vevalue of WTs in the present study was significantly lower than those of other tumors[3,14].In another study by Huanget al[28],unlike other studies,the Vevalue of WTs and the Vevalues of PMAs and OBTs were found to be significantly lower.In ROC analysis using a cut-off value of Kep≥ 2.44 min?1for WTs,the AUC,sensitivity,and specificity were 97.3%,100%,and 85.5%,respectively.On the other hand,in ROC analysis using a cut-off value of Ve≤ 0.17,quite high AUC,sensitivity,and specificity values(95.8%,100%,and 90.9%,respectively)were obtained.High Kepand low Vevalues in WTs are explained by the limited extravascular and extracellular space in these tumors.As many studies in the literature and the present study revealed,ADC and TIC patterns of WTs could overlap with those of MTs[11].However,similar to the findings of the studies in the literature,the present study showed that quantitative perfusion MRI parameters Kepand Vecould contribute greatly to distinguishing WTs from MTs[3,14,15].Nevertheless,our findings need to be verified by future quantitative perfusion MRI studies performed with larger series.

    There are some limitations in this study.First,the parameters(number of dynamic series,acquisition time,etc.)varied on perfusion MRI series due to the retrospective nature of the study.Second,most of the tumors in our study were benign SGTs,and the number of MTs in the primary salivary gland was relatively low,which may have resulted in an overestimation of the diagnostic accuracy.Third,the manual definition of ROI might have increased the variability in quantitative measurements.Although the cystic-necrotic components of the lesions were excluded from the ROI in our study,contamination of these areas can lead to significant changes in quantitative values,even if it is small in manual measurements.Fourth,for the measurements of ADC values and semiquantitative and quantitative DCE perfusion MRI parameters,interobserver agreement could not be evaluated in the study as the measurements were made by two observers with consensus.

    CONCLUSION

    Combined use of quantitative DCE MRI along with diffusion MRI and semiquantitative DCE MRI could help radiologists in the differential diagnosis of different subtypes of SGTs by providing higher diagnostic accuracy.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Conventional magnetic resonance imaging(MRI)provides more data than other radiological modalities in determining the extent of tumor spread in salivary gland tumors(SGTs)and assessing its relationship to vascular and neural structures,but falls short of distinguishing subtypes of SGTs.As the malignant or benign nature of SGTs affects the treatment protocol,it is important to differentiate between malignant(MTs)and benign tumors(BTs)noninvasively with high diagnostic accuracy.

    Research motivation

    In recent years,advanced MRI techniques such as diffusion-weighted imaging(DWI)and semiquantitative MRI have been increasingly used in the radiological evaluation of SGTs.However,various studies on quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced(DCE)perfusion MRI parameters(Ktrans,Kep,and Ve)in SGTs are limited.Therefore,in this study,the effectiveness of advanced MRI applications,including all three methods,in the diagnosis of SGTs was evaluated in light of the literature.

    Research objectives

    To determine the diagnostic efficiency of DWI and DCE(semiquantitative perfusion)MRI and quantitative perfusion MRI parameters in SGTs.

    Research methods

    Apparent diffusion coefficient(ADC)values of SGTs on DWI were measured with manually inserted regions of interest,excluding the cystic components of the tumors.Time intensity curve(TIC)patterns were created for semiquantitative perfusion MRI based on Tpeakand washout ratios(WRs)of tumors.On quantitative DCE MRI,perfusion parameters such as Ktrans[volume transfer constant between blood plasma and extracellular extravascular space(EES)],Kep(flux rate constant between the EES and plasma),and Ve(EES fractional volume)were used.

    Research results

    The ADC values of pleomorphic adenomas(PMAs)were significantly higher than those of Warthin's tumors(WTs),other benign tumors(OBTs),and MTs(P<0.001).However,there was no significant difference in ADC values for OBTs,WTs,and MTs.PMAs had type A and WTs had type B TIC pattern while the vast majority of MTs and OBTs(54.5% and 45.5%,respectively)displayed type C TIC pattern.PMAs showed no washout,while the highest mean WR was observed in WTs.For quantitative perfusion MRI parameters,the Kepvalue of WTs was significantly higher than those of other tumors(P<0.001).For the Vevalue,WTs and OBTs differed significantly from PMAs and MTs(P<0.001).Ktransvalues of PMAs,WTs,OBTs,and MTs were not significantly different.

    Research conclusions

    DWI and semiquantitative and quantitative perfusion MRI,which provide more information on the microstructure,cellularity,interstitial distance,and vascularity of tumors,have increased the discrimination power for subtypes of SGTs.

    Research perspectives

    Although there is some overlap in the findings of the subtypes of SGTs obtained by advanced MRI methods,the combined use of DWI and semiquantitative and quantitative perfusion MRI will increase the power for distinguishing subtypes of SGTs.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    We thank Demir O and Gürp?nar AB for their help with the statistical analyses.

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:G?k?e E designed the study;Beyhan M supervised the study;G?k?e E and Beyhan M participated in literature research and manuscript preparation,and read and approved the final version.

    Institutional review board statement:This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Tokat Gaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Medicine(20-KAEK-105).

    Informed consent statement:Patients were not required to give informed consent for the study as figures from picture archiving and communication systems were studied retrospectively.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.

    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 BYNC 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 noncommercial.See:https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Country/Territory of origin:Turkey

    ORCID number:Erkan G?k?e 0000-0003-3947-2972;Murat Beyhan 0000-0002-8630-4632.

    S-Editor:Liu XF

    L-Editor:Wang TQ

    P-Editor:Liu XF

    99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲 | 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 久久精品91蜜桃| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 直男gayav资源| 久久人妻av系列| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 久久久久久久久久成人| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 在线免费十八禁| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 在现免费观看毛片| 亚洲图色成人| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 国产精品三级大全| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| av.在线天堂| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 禁无遮挡网站| 99热这里只有是精品50| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 久久中文看片网| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 91av网一区二区| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 毛片女人毛片| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 亚洲av中文av极速乱 | 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 黄色一级大片看看| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 性色avwww在线观看| 高清在线国产一区| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 日本 欧美在线| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 在线观看一区二区三区| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 国产精品野战在线观看| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看 | 黄色一级大片看看| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 禁无遮挡网站| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 日本与韩国留学比较| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 日韩中字成人| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 床上黄色一级片| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 亚洲四区av| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲av中文av极速乱 | 欧美一区二区亚洲| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 黄色配什么色好看| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| eeuss影院久久| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 97超视频在线观看视频| 69人妻影院| 国产精华一区二区三区| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 日日撸夜夜添| 一进一出抽搐动态| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 久9热在线精品视频| 看片在线看免费视频| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 国产av不卡久久| 夜夜爽天天搞| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 全区人妻精品视频| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 色吧在线观看| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 日本黄大片高清| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 美女高潮的动态| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 一区福利在线观看| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 日本一本二区三区精品| 美女大奶头视频| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 亚洲四区av| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 18+在线观看网站| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 97热精品久久久久久| 内地一区二区视频在线| 91在线观看av| 久久久午夜欧美精品| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 免费观看精品视频网站| h日本视频在线播放| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 精品国产三级普通话版| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| bbb黄色大片| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 黄色一级大片看看| 午夜影院日韩av| 99久久精品热视频| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 在线免费观看的www视频| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 男人舔奶头视频| 欧美zozozo另类| av在线老鸭窝| 国产三级中文精品| a在线观看视频网站| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 天堂动漫精品| 校园春色视频在线观看| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 欧美性感艳星| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区 | 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 在线天堂最新版资源| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 国产乱人视频| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 日本三级黄在线观看| ponron亚洲| 欧美激情在线99| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 午夜福利高清视频| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 级片在线观看| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 22中文网久久字幕| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲在线自拍视频| .国产精品久久| 黄片wwwwww| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 三级毛片av免费| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 美女黄网站色视频| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 一本精品99久久精品77| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 精品午夜福利在线看| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 亚洲 国产 在线| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 在线国产一区二区在线| av天堂在线播放| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 最好的美女福利视频网| 色综合站精品国产| 热99re8久久精品国产| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 极品教师在线视频| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 特级一级黄色大片| 黄色女人牲交| 日韩欧美免费精品| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| www.色视频.com| a在线观看视频网站| 免费观看精品视频网站| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 欧美色视频一区免费| 在线国产一区二区在线| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 午夜免费激情av| 1000部很黄的大片| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产老妇女一区| 免费av毛片视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 简卡轻食公司| 欧美+日韩+精品| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 欧美成人a在线观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 久99久视频精品免费| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 午夜免费激情av| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 变态另类丝袜制服| 国产成人av教育| 日日夜夜操网爽| 日本黄大片高清| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| netflix在线观看网站| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 午夜福利18| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 久久亚洲真实| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 美女大奶头视频| 性色avwww在线观看| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验 | 亚洲第一电影网av| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 欧美日韩黄片免| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| www.www免费av| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 亚洲五月天丁香| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 国产精华一区二区三区| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 精品福利观看| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 日本熟妇午夜| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 午夜福利高清视频| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 看黄色毛片网站| 热99在线观看视频| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 观看美女的网站| av在线老鸭窝| 日本色播在线视频| videossex国产| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 午夜a级毛片| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 有码 亚洲区| 级片在线观看| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 久久久国产成人免费| 黄色日韩在线| 乱人视频在线观看| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 97碰自拍视频| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 国产在线男女| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 国产高清三级在线| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| av在线蜜桃| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6 | 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 特级一级黄色大片| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| www日本黄色视频网| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 久久久精品大字幕| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 国产成人一区二区在线| 日本 av在线| 欧美zozozo另类| 欧美日本视频| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 日本黄色片子视频| 身体一侧抽搐| 国产精品久久视频播放| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 午夜福利在线在线| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 国产精品女同一区二区软件 | 天堂√8在线中文| 国产综合懂色| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 久久草成人影院| av中文乱码字幕在线| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 22中文网久久字幕| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 十八禁网站免费在线| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 欧美日本视频| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 日韩高清综合在线| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 内地一区二区视频在线| 波多野结衣高清作品| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 久久久久国内视频| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 日本成人三级电影网站| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 最好的美女福利视频网| 国产美女午夜福利| 午夜福利高清视频| 国产美女午夜福利| 国产乱人视频| 国产成人aa在线观看| 午夜福利高清视频| 一进一出抽搐动态| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 丝袜美腿在线中文| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 亚洲第一电影网av| 丰满的人妻完整版| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 深夜a级毛片| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 观看免费一级毛片| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 91狼人影院| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 色综合婷婷激情| 日韩欧美免费精品| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 免费大片18禁| 黄色配什么色好看| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 性色avwww在线观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| ponron亚洲| aaaaa片日本免费| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 欧美3d第一页| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲 | 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 成人国产综合亚洲| 舔av片在线| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 黄色日韩在线| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 校园春色视频在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 色播亚洲综合网| av福利片在线观看| 俺也久久电影网| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| av黄色大香蕉| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 91在线观看av| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 久久香蕉精品热| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 亚洲美女视频黄频| av在线亚洲专区| 在线免费十八禁| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国产免费男女视频| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 在线观看一区二区三区| 欧美日本视频| 久9热在线精品视频| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 99热精品在线国产| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 搡老岳熟女国产| 在线国产一区二区在线| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 久久这里只有精品中国| 欧美+日韩+精品| 久9热在线精品视频| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 1024手机看黄色片|