分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
基于钆塞酸二钠增强MRI肝胆期全肝直方图分析预测肝细胞癌肝切除术后肝衰竭的价值
齐婷玉 朱绍成

本文引用格式:齐婷玉, 朱绍成. 基于钆塞酸二钠增强MRI肝胆期全肝直方图分析预测肝细胞癌肝切除术后肝衰竭的价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(5): 81-86. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.05.012.


[摘要] 目的 基于钆塞酸二钠(gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid, Gd-EOB-DTPA)增强MRI获取肝胆期图像的常规信号强度直方图特征,术前评估其对肝细胞癌(hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC)患者肝切除术后肝衰竭(post-hepatectomy liver failure, PHLF)的诊断效能。材料与方法 采用单中心回顾性研究设计,收集2017年1月至2023年12月于河南省人民医院接受肝切除术的198例HCC患者的临床及影像学资料,所有入组病例术前均完成Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI检查。依据国际肝脏外科研究协会(International Study Group of Liver Surgery, ISGLS)制定的PHLF诊断标准,将术后患者分为PHLF组(42例)与非PHLF组(156例)。比较两组患者术前MRI肝胆期直方图参数的组间差异,同时通过受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线分析,评价各直方图参数对PHLF的预测效能。结果 PHLF组的峰度、均值、平均差、偏度、第10百分位数及第90百分位数均高于非PHLF组,各项指标组间差异均具有统计学意义(Bonferroni校正后P<0.003 3)。ROC曲线分析结果表明,偏度预测PHLF的曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)为0.868 [95%置信区间(confidence interval, CI):0.809~0.928],第10百分位数、峰度及均值的AUC分别为0.720(95% CI:0.632~0.807)、0.665(95% CI:0.570~0.760)与0.657(95% CI:0.559~0.754)。其中偏度的预测效能最为优异,AUC为0.868,敏感度为69.0%,特异度为89.1%,最佳阈值为0.515。结论 基于Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI肝胆期图像的常规信号强度直方图分析,尤其偏度参数,可作为术前预测HCC患者PHLF的有效影像学工具,但需结合手术切除范围及未来残肝体积等临床因素综合判断。
[Abstract] Objective Based on gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to obtain conventional signal intensity histogram features of hepatobiliary phase images, preoperatively evaluating its diagnostic performance for post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Materials and Methods A retrospective study was performed at a single center. Information was gathered from 198 individuals diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma and who had hepatectomy at Henan Provincial People's Hospital from January 2017 to December 2023. Each patient included in the study had preoperative Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI scans. Based on the PHLF diagnostic criteria formulated by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS), the patients were categorized into a PHLF group (42 cases) and a non-PHLF group (156 cases). The preoperative hepatobiliary phase histogram parameters were compared between the PHLF group and non-PHLF group, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to assess how well these histogram parameters could predict the likelihood of developing liver failure after hepatectomy.Results The PHLF group showed significantly higher kurtosis, mean, mean deviation, skewness, 10th percentile, and 90th percentile values compared with the non-PHLF group (Bonferroni corrected P < 0.003 3). The ROC analysis indicated that the area under the curve (AUC) for skewness in predicting postoperative PHLF was 0.868 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.809 to 0.928], while the AUCs for the 10th percentile, kurtosis, and mean were 0.720 (95% CI: 0.632 to 0.807), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.570 to 0.760), and 0.657 (95% CI: 0.559 to 0.754), respectively. Skewness demonstrated the best predictive performance with an AUC of 0.868, sensitivity of 69.0%, specificity of 89.1%, and an optimal cutoff value of 0.515.Conclusions Conventional signal intensity histogram analysis of Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI hepatobiliary phase images, particularly the skewness parameter, can serve as an effective imaging tool for preoperative prediction of PHLF in HCC, but it needs to be comprehensively assessed in combination with clinical factors such as the extent of surgical resection and the future residual liver volume.
[关键词] 肝细胞癌;肝衰竭;钆塞酸二钠增强;磁共振成像;肝脏切除;肝胆期直方图分析
[Keywords] hepatocellular carcinoma;liver failure;Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced;magnetic resonance imaging;liver resection;hepatobiliary phase histogram analysis

齐婷玉 1   朱绍成 1, 2, 3*  

1 河南医药大学河南省人民医院影像科,新乡 453003

2 河南省人民医院影像科,郑州 450003

3 阜外华中心血管病医院影像科,郑州 450003

通信作者:朱绍成,E-mail:zsc2686@163.com

作者贡献声明:朱绍成设计本研究的方案,对稿件重要内容进行了修改,获得了中原英才计划(育才系列)项目资助;齐婷玉收集资料、整理和分析数据、撰写稿件;全体作者都同意发表最后的修改稿,同意对本研究的所有方面负责,确保本研究的准确性和诚信。


基金项目: 中原英才计划(育才系列)项目 KK20240049
收稿日期:2025-12-23
接受日期:2026-04-28
中图分类号:R445.2  R735.7 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.05.012
本文引用格式:齐婷玉, 朱绍成. 基于钆塞酸二钠增强MRI肝胆期全肝直方图分析预测肝细胞癌肝切除术后肝衰竭的价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(5): 81-86. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.05.012.

0 引言

       肝细胞癌(hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC)在全球范围内所有癌症中位列第六,同时也是恶性肿瘤导致死亡的第三大主因[1]。肝切除术仍是HCC核心治愈性治疗手段[2],但发生肝切除术后肝衰竭(post-hepatectomy liver failure, PHLF)的概率约为10%~30%[3],是围手术期死亡的主要危险因素,其死亡率最高可达50%[4]。PHLF的发生与肝脏功能储备密切相关[5],因此术前充分评估肝功能储备至关重要。现阶段评估肝脏储备功能的传统临床方法包含Child–Pugh分级、终末期肝病模型评分、白蛋白–胆红素评分、吲哚菁绿清除率试验等[6, 7, 8, 9],虽然上述方法能反映肝脏整体功能,但并没有提供肝脏功能异质性分布的信息[10, 11]。钆塞酸二钠(gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid, Gd-EOB-DTPA)是一种针对肝细胞的特异性MRI对比剂,凭借其亲脂性乙氧基苯甲基基团,能够使其约50%通过肝细胞膜上的有机阴离子转运多肽1B3被肝细胞摄取并暂时积聚,从而增强正常肝实质,而后经多重耐药相关蛋白2排泄到胆管内[12, 13, 14]。当肝脏储备功能下降时,肝细胞对Gd-EOB-DTPA的摄取量减少,进而导致肝实质的增强程度下降[15]。有学者提出基于术前Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI测量的肝脏相对增强(relative liver enhancement, RLE)、肝细胞摄取指数可识别肝功能储备不足和PHLF风险较高的患者[16, 17, 18, 19, 20],但在大部分肝叶手术中,其对肝功能的评估效能及肝衰竭风险的预测价值存在一定局限性[21]

       近年来,直方图分析作为一种数学工具,可通过评估感兴趣区(region of interest, ROI)内图像数据的灰度分布,来反映组织的微观结构特征[22, 23]。KIM等[24]指出,相比RLE,直方图特征分析更适合评估肝功能且更能实现信号强度分布的一致量化。从T1 mapping图像中提取的直方图特征已被证实是诊断肝纤维化的重要生物标志物[25, 26]。而血氧水平依赖功能性MRI全肝直方图分析亦能提高肝纤维化分期的诊断效能[27]。此外,Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI全肝直方图分析已被尝试用于预测肝硬化患者肝功能不全[28]。然而,国内外借助直方图分析技术评估肝脏储备功能或预测PHLF的相关研究相对较少。既往虽有研究已证实基于T1 mapping的Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI全肝直方图分析对PHLF的预测价值[29]。但T1 mapping序列采集及后处理相对复杂,临床普及性受限;相比之下,常规肝胆期(hepatobiliary phase, HBP)信号强度图像更易获取,但其全肝直方图分析在PHLF预测中的价值尚未得到验证。现有关于常规肝胆期信号强度直方图预测PHLF的研究仍存在不足:样本量普遍较小、多未采用全肝勾画、缺乏对偏度等关键参数的深入分析,且未明确最佳诊断阈值。因此,有必要基于较大样本的HCC患者,系统评估肝胆期常规信号强度直方图参数对PHLF的预测效能并确定最佳阈值。本研究回顾性分析HCC切除术患者术前的临床及影像资料,评估Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI肝胆期常规信号强度直方图参数术前预测PHLF的应用价值。

1 材料与方法

1.1 研究对象

       本研究遵守《赫尔辛基宣言》,经河南省人民医院伦理委员会审查批准,免除受试者知情同意,批文号:(2023)伦审第(147)号。本研究为单中心、回顾性诊断准确性研究,符合诊断准确性研究报告规范,回顾性了分析2017年1月至2023年12月在河南省人民医院行Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI患者。纳入标准:(1)术前1个月内接受Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI;(2)均行HCC切除术且术后病理确诊为HCC;(3)术前后1周内临床资料完整;(4)无肝外转移或其他恶性肿瘤病史。排除标准:(1)术前有动脉化疗栓塞术、射频消融等治疗史;(2)图像中存在伪影干扰不符合图像分析要求;(3)合并严重心、肾、肺功能不全者。PHLF根据2011年国际肝脏外科研究协会(International Study Group of Liver Surgery, ISGLS)标准进行定义[30],即在排除胆道梗阻的情况下,术后第5天或之后凝血酶原时间国际标准化比值(international normalized ratio, INR)和总胆红素(total bilirubin, TBIL)较术前升髙,并伴有高胆红素血症。采用此标准分为PHLF组和非PHLF组。

1.2 MRI检查方法

       患者均采用3.0 T MRI系统完成扫描(GE Healthcare, Discover MR750),采用腹部8通道相控阵表面线圈进行上腹部扫描,扫描范围覆盖整个肝脏,患者扫描前空腹4~6小时。T1WI序列选用肝脏快速容积采集成像,扫描参数:重复时间(repetition time, TR)3.7 ms,回波时间(echo time, TE)1.7 ms,矩阵260×150,视野(field of view, FOV)380 mm×304 mm,层厚5 mm;T2WI序列扫描参数:TR 2609 ms,TE 82.2 ms,矩阵320×320,FOV 360 mm×360 mm,层厚7 mm;扩散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging, DWI)序列参数:TR 7059 ms,TE 78.4 ms,矩阵160×192,FOV 360 mm×288 mm,层厚7 mm,b值为0、800、1000和1200 mm2/s。完成常规序列扫描后,采用高压注射器经肘静脉输注肝胆特异性对比剂钆塞酸二钠(拜耳公司,德国),输注速率为1 mL/s,剂量为0.025 mmol/kg,依次扫描动脉期、门静脉期、移行期和肝胆期,采集时间分别为对比剂注射后20~30 s、60~90 s、3~5 min、20 min,扫描参数同T1Wl序列。

1.3 图像分析

       所有病例在完成Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI扫描后,均从影像存档与通信系统以DICOM格式导出并存档,随后将数据被导入3D Slicer软件(版本5.4.0,http://download.slicer.org)。由2位具有5年腹部MRI诊断经验的放射科主治医师在不知晓患者临床信息及是否发生PHLF的情况下,逐层在MRI图像上手动勾画全肝脏ROI(图1),操作过程中,注意避让管径≥3 mm的肝内大血管、管径≥2 mm的肝内胆管、肉眼可辨的局灶性病变及伪影,且排除HCC区域及巨块型HCC周围的低摄取区域。为评估勾画的一致性,计算两位医师勾画的直方图参数的组内相关系数,系数>0.75为一致性较好。运用SlicerRadiomics提取肝胆期常规信号强度直方图特征参数,包括第10百分位数、第90百分位数、熵、四分位距、峰度、最大值、平均差、均值、中位数、最小值、范围、精细平均差、均方根、偏度、变异度。后续统计分析采用两位医师测量结果的平均值。

图1  HCC患者肝胆期MRI图像ROI勾画示意图。1A:男,40岁,PHLF组患者。1B:男,64岁,非PHLF组患者。HCC:肝细胞癌;ROI:感兴趣区;PHLF:肝切除术后肝衰竭。
Fig. 1  Schematic diagram of ROI delineation on the hepatobiliary phase MRI images of HCC patients. 1A: Male, 40 years old, patient in the PHLF group; 1B: Male, 64 years old, patient in the PHLF group. ROI: region of interest; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; PHLF: post-hepatectomy liver failure.

1.4 统计学分析

       使用IBM SPSS Statistics(版本27.0)软件进行统计分析。定量资料的正态性检验采用Kolmogorov-Smirnov方法,方差齐性检验则应用Levene's检验。符合正态分布的定量资料采用t检验,以均数±标准差表示;不符合正态分布的计量资料采用Mann-Whitney U检验,以中位数(四分位数间距)表示;计数资料选用χ2检验或Fisher确切概率法,用例数(%)表示。运用受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线评估各直方图参数的预测效能,并通过计算最大约登指数确定最佳诊断截断值,并获取曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)、敏感度及特异度。本研究设定P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义,但针对直方图参数的组间多重比较,采用Bonferroni法进行校正,校正后的显著性水平为0.003 3,即仅当P<0.003 3时认为差异具有统计学意义。为进一步比较不同直方图参数之间预测效能的差异,采用DeLong检验对具有统计学意义的参数所对应的AUC值进行两两比较,以评估各参数预测效能是否具有统计学显著性差异。

2 结果

2.1 患者临床资料

       最终198例患者入组研究,其中男161例、女37例,年龄18~77(54.6±9.9)岁。PHLF组42例(21.2%),非PHLF组156例(78.8%)。两组患者在年龄、性别、肝病病因、术前总胆红素等临床指标上的组间差异,均无统计学意义(均P>0.05),详见表1

表1  PHLF组与非PHLF组间术前临床资料比较
Tab. 1  Preoperative general clinical data comparison between the PHLF group and non-PHLF group

2.2 PHLF组和非PHLF组的肝胆期直方图参数比较

       PHLF组和非PHLF组直方图参数中,峰度、均值、平均差、偏度、第10百分位数、第90百分位数差异有统计学意义(Bonferroni校正后P<0.003 3),直方图参数PHLF组均大于非PHLF组。而中位数、最小值、熵、四分位距、最大值、范围、精细平均差、均方根、变异度差异无统计学意义(表2)。两位医师间各参数组内相关系数值介于0.803至0.929,一致性较好。

表2  PHLF组与非PHLF组术前肝胆期直方图参数分析结果
Tab. 2  Analysis of preoperative hepatobiliary histogram parameters in PHLF group and non-PHLF group

2.3 肝胆期直方图参数预测PHLF的效能

       PHLF组和非PHLF组中差异有统计学意义的各直方图参数进行ROC曲线(图2)分析显示,偏度、第10百分位数、峰度、均值预测HCC患者PHLF的AUC分别为0.868、0.720、0.665、0.657。DeLong检验结果显示,偏度的AUC显著高于第10百分位数、峰度及均值(均P<0.001),而其余参数两两之间比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05),表明偏度的预测效能优于其他直方图参数,敏感度为69.0%,特异度为89.1 %,最佳界值为0.515(表3)。

图2  肝细胞癌患者术前肝胆期直方图参数预测肝切除术后肝衰竭的受试者工作特征曲线。AUC:曲线下面积。
Fig.2  The receiver operating characteristic curve of preoperative hepatobiliary phase histogram parameters for predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. AUC: area under the curve.
表3  术前肝胆期直方图参数预测PHLF的ROC曲线分析结果
Tab. 3  ROC curve analysis results of preoperative hepatobiliary phase histogram parameters for predicting PHLF

3 讨论

       本研究采用单中心回顾性设计,纳入198例HCC患者,基于Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI肝胆期全肝常规信号强度直方图分析,术前评估HCC患者PHLF预测价值。结果显示PHLF组直方图参数中峰度、均值、平均差、偏度、第10百分位数、第90百分位数均显著高于非PHLF组;其中偏度预测效能最佳(AUC为0.868,敏感度69.0%,特异度89.1%,最佳界值0.515)。本研究为国内外首次基于常规肝胆期信号强度全肝直方图证实偏度可精准预测PHLF,无需复杂定量序列,临床可普及性强,可为HCC术前风险分层、手术方案制订及围手术期管理提供无创、可量化的影像学依据,具有重要转化价值。

3.1 直方图参数差异的机制分析

       本研究提取15个一阶直方图特征,发现PHLF组峰度、均值、平均差、偏度、第10百分位数、第90百分位数升高(Bonferroni校正后P<0.003 3)。偏度是描述总体灰度值直方图分布不对称性的统计量,其绝对值越大,表明分布的偏斜程度越高,即越不对称[31]。均值反映图像ROI中灰度的平均值,均值越大,表示组织异质性越大。峰度体现灰度值分布的尖峭程度,峰度值越高,提示灰度分布在均值附近的集中程度越高。百分位数可描述低于该百分数的灰度值特征,能够反映图像ROI内部的细微差异,百分位数值越高,说明组织异质性更为显著[32]。PHLF组上述参数升高,提示相较非PHLF组而言,PHLF组肝实质功能不均匀性更大。PHLF组患者因肝实质储备功能减退,肝细胞对Gd-EOB-DTPA的摄取能力呈现出显著的空间异质性,即部分肝细胞摄取能力相对保留,而部分则显著降低。该异质性导致肝胆期信号强度直方图分布偏离正态分布,表现为偏度及峰度升高。XU等[33]建立并验证一种非肿瘤性肝实质碘图直方图参数的模型,PHLF组偏度、峰度大于非PHLF组,且差异均具有统计学意义(P均<0.05),与本研究的结果呈现较好的一致性。但该研究基于CT碘图存在电离辐射,且碘摄取只反映血供而无法反映肝细胞特异性摄取功能。本研究则基于Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI肝胆期常规信号强度图像,采用全肝勾画策略,序列采集简便、临床推广性更强。

3.2 偏度作为核心预测指标的效能优势与临床意义

       本研究中,第10百分位数、偏度、峰度和均值对PHLF有一定的预测效能,其中偏度的预测效能最佳。偏度能够敏感捕捉肝实质信号分布的不对称性,提示PHLF组与非PHLF组的总体灰度值直方图分布不对称性差异较大,直接反映肝细胞摄取功能的空间异质性。练玉清等[34]利用Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI直方图参数中的偏度预测肝脏储备功能的诊断效能AUC为0.816,本研究结果与其研究结论一致,但本研究终点从“储备功能”提升至临床更关注的PHLF,采用全肝逐层勾画替代特定层面勾画,更全面地反映肝功能异质性,且样本量更大,统计效能更高,并进一步确定了PHLF的最佳偏度界值,可直接用于术前风险分层。本研究结果显示均值的诊断效能较低,或与肝脏边缘区及噪声引发的信号强度异常值的作用有关,提示均值作为集中趋势指标对肝功能的微小异质性变化不够敏感。

3.3 常规信号强度直方图分析与其他Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI评估方法的比较

       Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI能揭示肝实质功能的空间异质性,有助于预测PHLF的发生,但方法不一。KUDO等[35]提出了结合未来残肝功能与残肝体积的vaLSRi-rem指标,在多因素分析中显示出最高的PHLF预测能力(OR值高达9.12,P<0.01),但该方法需要精确的残肝体积分割和三维容积分析,操作流程相对复杂,且对脾脏参考信号存在依赖性。JEONG等[36]在1760例HCC患者中基于深度学习分析Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI肝胆期图像,构建了预测PHLF的列线图模型,全肝模型AUC为0.78,残肝模型AUC为0.81,模型整合了性别、谷氨酰转肽酶、凝血酶原时间-国际标准化比值、血小板、切除范围及MRI衍生的肝体积和脾体积等多个变量,体现了多参数整合的优势。然而,深度学习模型在临床实际应用中对硬件设备和算法部署的要求较高,且模型的跨中心泛化能力仍需进一步验证。相比之下,本研究采用的常规信号强度直方图分析仅需在肝胆期图像上勾画全肝ROI即可完成,不依赖脾脏参考、无需额外序列,操作流程更为简化。

3.4 研究局限性及未来方向

       但本研究仍存在以下不足:(1)为单中心回顾性设计,且未收集肿瘤最大直径、肝切除的具体体积(如未来残肝比例)及切除方式等相关手术变量,这些因素已被证实是PHLF的核心影响因素[37, 38],可能导致结果存在混杂偏倚。后续前瞻性研究应将直方图参数与未来残肝体积、临床指标整合,构建多因素联合预测模型。(2)由于样本量的限制,缺少通过ISGLS标准对PHLF程度进行分级,无法准确评估Gd-EOB-DTPA肝胆期直方图参数对不同分级肝衰竭风险的预测价值。BAUMGARTNER等[39]发现不同ISGLS分级间的预测因子存在差异,未来需扩大样本开展分级预测研究。(3)仅提取了一阶直方图特征,未纳入二阶纹理特征,如灰度共生矩阵、游程矩阵等,高阶纹理特征可能蕴含更多肝功能异质性信息,有待进一步探索。

4 结论

       综上所述,基于Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI肝胆期全肝常规信号强度直方图参数,尤其是偏度,对HCC患者PHLF具有较高的预测能力,为HCC围手术期风险评估提供了一种新颖的无创影像学方法,有望改善临床决策和患者预后。

[1]
LI Q R, XIA C F, LI H, et al. Disparities in 36 cancers across 185 countries: secondary analysis of global cancer statistics[J]. Front Med, 2024, 18(5): 911-920. DOI: 10.1007/s11684-024-1058-6.
[2]
BOUBADDI M, MARICHEZ A, ADAM J P, et al. Comprehensive review of future liver remnant (FLR) assessment and hypertrophy techniques before major hepatectomy: how to assess and manage the FLR[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2024, 31(13): 9205-9220. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16108-9.
[3]
BEKHEIT M, GRUNDY L, SALIH A K, et al. Post-hepatectomy liver failure: a timeline centered review[J]. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2023, 22(6): 554-569. DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2023.03.001.
[4]
SØREIDE J A, DESHPANDE R. Post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF)-Recent advances in prevention and clinical management[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2021, 47(2): 216-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.09.001.
[5]
TOMASSINI F, GIGLIO M C, DE SIMONE G, et al. Hepatic function assessment to predict post-hepatectomy liver failure: what can we trust A systematic review[J]. Updates Surg, 2020, 72(4): 925-938. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00859-7.
[6]
PRODEAU M, DRUMEZ E, DUHAMEL A, et al. An ordinal model to predict the risk of symptomatic liver failure in patients with cirrhosis undergoing hepatectomy[J]. J Hepatol, 2019, 71(5): 920-929. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.06.003.
[7]
TAKAHASHI K, GOSHO M, KIM J, et al. Prediction of posthepatectomy liver failure with a combination of albumin-bilirubin score and liver resection percentage[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2022, 234(2): 155-165. DOI: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000027.
[8]
WONG W G, PEREZ HOLGUIN R A, TARREN A Y, et al. Albumin-bilirubin score is superior to platelet-albumin-bilirubin score and model for end-state liver disease sodium for predicting posthepatectomy liver failure[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2022, 126(4): 667-679. DOI: 10.1002/jso.26981.
[9]
ZAHARIA R, MORARASU S, IVANOV A A, et al. Predicting outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma surgery: ALBI is the better tool. an observational cohort study[J]. Chirurgia, 2025, 120(5): 555. DOI: 10.21614/chirurgia.3146.
[10]
WANG Y J, ZHANG L, NING J, et al. Preoperative remnant liver function evaluation using a routine clinical dynamic Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI protocol in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2021, 28(7): 3672-3682. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09361-1.
[11]
VERLOH N, BARTULOS C RIO, UTPATEL K, et al. Volume-assisted estimation of remnant liver function based on Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR relaxometry: a prospective observational trial[J/OL]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2023, 13(18): 3014 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37761381/. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13183014.
[12]
DENG Y H, YANG D W, XU H, et al. Diagnostic performance of imaging features in the HBP of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI for microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis[J]. Acta Radiol, 2022, 63(10): 1303-1314. DOI: 10.1177/02841851211038806.
[13]
INCHINGOLO R, FALETTI R, GRAZIOLI L, et al. MR with Gd-EOB-DTPA in assessment of liver nodules in cirrhotic patients[J]. World J Hepatol, 2018, 10(7): 462-473. DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v10.i7.462.
[14]
PEREZ-GIRBES A, LEE J M, MARTÍ-BONMATÍ L. Hepatobiliary contrast agents for liver magnetic resonance imaging[J/OL]. Radiol Engl Ed, 2024, 66: S75-S88 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39603743/. DOI: 10.1016/j.rxeng.2024.05.002.
[15]
HAIMERL M, VERLOH N, ZEMAN F, et al. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for evaluation of liver function: Comparison between signal-intensity-based indices and T1 relaxometry[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2017, 7: 43347 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28266528/. DOI: 10.1038/srep43347.
[16]
KIM D K, CHOI J I, CHOI M H, et al. Prediction of posthepatectomy liver failure: MRI with hepatocyte-specific contrast agent versus indocyanine green clearance test[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018, 211(3): 580-587. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19206.
[17]
DONADON M, LANZA E, BRANCIFORTE B, et al. Hepatic uptake index in the hepatobiliary phase of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine penta acetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging estimates functional liver reserve and predicts post-hepatectomy liver failure[J]. Surgery, 2020, 168(3): 419-425. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.04.041.
[18]
LAUSCHER J C, DIXON M E B, JADA G, et al. Prediction of post-hepatectomy liver failure by preoperative gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging[J]. HPB, 2024, 26(6): 782-788. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2024.02.012.
[19]
BARTHOLOMÄ W C, GILG S, LUNDBERG P, et al. Magnetic resonance-derived hepatic uptake index improves the identification of patients at risk of severe post-hepatectomy liver failure[J/OL]. Br J Surg, 2025, 112(5): znaf103 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40439016/. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znaf103.
[20]
YU Q J, LUO Y C, ZUO Z W, et al. Utility of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating liver failure risk after major hepatic resection[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2024, 14(5): 3731-3743. DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-1504.
[21]
叶辰, 任思谦, 阿卜杜海拜尔·萨杜拉, 等. 钆塞酸二钠增强MRI在肝癌大块肝切除手术中的应用价值[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2020, 58(10): 765-769. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20200709-00550.
YE C, REN S Q, ABUDUHAIBAIER S, et al. The value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI in patients with major resection of liver cancer[J]. Chin J Surg, 2020, 58(10): 765-769. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20200709-00550.
[22]
LEWIS S, HECTORS S, TAOULI B. Radiomics of hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Abdom Radiol, 2021, 46(1): 111-123. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02378-5.
[23]
YANG X Q, LEI P, SONG Y H, et al. Quantitative CT assessment by histogram and volume ratio in pyrrolizidines alkaloids-induced hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2021, 138: 109632 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33711570/. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109632.
[24]
KIM H, PARK S H, KIM E K, et al. Histogram analysis of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for quantitative hepatic fibrosis measurement[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(12):e114224 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25460180/. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114224.
[25]
WANG Q, LIU H F, ZHU Z H, et al. Feasibility of T1 mapping with histogram analysis for the diagnosis and staging of liver fibrosis: Preclinical results[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 76: 79-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2020.11.006.
[26]
XU X X, ZHU H, LI R K, et al. Whole-liver histogram and texture analysis on T1 maps improves the risk stratification of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(3): 1748-1759. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07235-4.
[27]
LIU H F, WANG Q, DU Y N, et al. Whole-liver histogram analysis of blood oxygen level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating hepatic fibrosis[J]. Ann Palliat Med, 2021, 10(3): 2567-2576. DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1753.
[28]
QIAO X, WANG Z R, ZHANG X R, et al. Whole-liver histogram analysis of hepatocyte-specific contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for predicting progression in patients with cirrhosis[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2024, 14(8): 6072-6086. DOI: 10.21037/qims-24-109.
[29]
LI J, LI Y, CHEN Y Y, et al. Predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure with T1 mapping-based whole-liver histogram analysis on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: comparison with the indocyanine green clearance test and albumin-bilirubin scoring system[J]. Eur Radiol, 2025, 35(6): 3587-3598. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11238-w.
[30]
RAHBARI N N, GARDEN O J, PADBURY R, et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS)[J]. Surgery, 2011, 149(5): 713-724. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.10.001.
[31]
DENG L N, YANG J J, ZHANG M T, et al. Whole-lesion iodine map histogram analysis versus single-slice spectral CT parameters for determining novel International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer grade of invasive non-mucinous pulmonary adenocarcinomas[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2024, 105(5): 165-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2023.12.001.
[32]
王东东, 李晓茗, 杨柳, 等. 基于磁共振动态增强图像直方图分析对肝癌TACE术后早期疗效评估及预测研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2024, 15(1): 113-118, 131. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.018.
WANG D D, LI X M, YANG L, et al. Evaluation and prediction of therapeutic effect of hepatocellular carcinoma after TACE based on contrast enhanced MRI histogram analysis[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(1): 113-118, 131. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.018.
[33]
XU Y, LIU B, LI F K, et al. Prediction of posthepatectomy liver failure in narrow resection margins HCC: a model based on iodine map histogram analysis of nontumorous liver parenchyma[J]. Acad Radiol, 2025, 32(9): 5219-5230. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2025.05.002.
[34]
练玉清, 薛星, 冯湛, 等. Gd-EOB-DTPA增强MRI肝胆期信号强度及直方图在评估肝脏储备功能中的价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(10): 36-40. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.10.006.
LIAN Y Q, XUE X, FENG Z, et al. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI for evaluation of hepatic reserve function: The value of hepatic signal intensity and histogram in hepatobiliary phase[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(10): 36-40. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.10.006.
[35]
KUDO M, GOTOHDA N, SUGIMOTO M, et al. Predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure based on future remnant liver function combined with future remnant liver volume using magnetic resonance imaging[J/OL]. Langenbeck's Arch Surg, 2025, 410(1): 177 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40478484/. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-025-03764-y.
[36]
JEONG B, HEO S, LEE S S, et al. Predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: nomograms based on deep learning analysis of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI[J]. Eur Radiol, 2025, 35(5): 2769-2782. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11173-w.
[37]
WANG X, ZHU M X, WANG J F, et al. Multivariable prognostic models for post-hepatectomy liver failure: an updated systematic review[J/OL]. World J Hepatol, 2025, 17(4) [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40308827/. DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v17.i4.103330.
[38]
LONG H Y, PENG C, DING H, et al. Predicting symptomatic post-hepatectomy liver failure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: development and validation of a preoperative nomogram[J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(11): 7665-7674. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09803-w.
[39]
BAUMGARTNER R, ENGSTRAND J, RAJALA P, et al. Comparing the accuracy of prediction models to detect clinically relevant post-hepatectomy liver failure early after major hepatectomy[J/OL]. Br J Surg, 2024, 111(1): znad433 [2026-04-13]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38150185/. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad433.

上一篇 基于心脏磁共振特征追踪技术评估高血压合并或不合并糖尿病患者双心室应变的对比研究
下一篇 基于DWI不同b值组合的虚拟磁共振弹性成像评估急性胰腺炎严重程度的应用价值
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2