Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]815116
• Clinical Article •
The value of routine MRI combined with diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of atypical liver abscess and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
DENG Juan  WANG Jun  LI Shenglin  LIU Xianwang  XUE Caiqiang  ZHOU Junlin 

Cite this article as: Deng J, Wang J, Li SL, et al. The value of routine MRI combined with diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of atypical liver abscess and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(12): 1119-1123. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.12.008.


[Abstract] Objective: To investigate the value of MR routine examination combined with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in the differentiation of atypical liver abscess and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).Materials and Methods: MR images of 19 cases of ICC and 19 cases of atypical liver abscess were retrospectively identified, observing the difference in MR signs of the lesion, the mean apparent diffusion coefficient value (ADCmean) and the relative apparent diffusion coefficient value (rADC) of the solid part of the lesion edge between the two groups. Differences in MR signs and ADC values between the two groups were evaluated with the t test and χ2 test.Results: ICC and atypical liver abscess showed statistically significant differences in arterial phase broken ring sign, hepatic perfusion disorders, and hepatic capsular retraction (P<0.05). The ADCmean value and rADC value of the solid components at the edge of the ICC lesion were (0.84±0.14)×10-3 mm2/s and (0.70±0.12), respectively; the ADCmean value and rADC value of the solid components at the edge of the liver abscess were (1.04±0.10)×10-3 mm2/s and (0.95±0.05), respectively; the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.001). The area under the ROC curve of ADCmean value and rADC value were 0.832 and 0.964, respectively. Taking 0.86×10-3 mm2/s as the cut-off value, the sensitivity and specificity of ADCmean value in distinguishing ICC from atypical liver abscess are 100% and 63.2%, respectively. Taking 0.83 as the cutoff value, the sensitivity and specificity of rADC to distinguish between the two are 100% and 84.2%, respectively.Conclusions: MR routine examination combined with DWI can help to distinguish ICC from atypical hepatic abscess.
[Keywords] cholangiocarcinoma；liver abscess；magnetic resonance imaging；diffusion-weighted imaging；apparent diffusion coefficient

DENG Juan Department of Radiology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China; Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China; Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging, Gansu province, Lanzhou 730030, China

WANG Jun Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China

LI Shenglin Department of Radiology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China; Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China; Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging, Gansu province, Lanzhou 730030, China

LIU Xianwang Department of Radiology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China; Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China; Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging, Gansu province, Lanzhou 730030, China

XUE Caiqiang Department of Radiology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China; Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China; Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging, Gansu province, Lanzhou 730030, China

ZHOU Junlin* Department of Radiology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China; Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging, Gansu province, Lanzhou 730030, China

*Correspondence to: Zhou JL, E-mail: lzuzjl601@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  This work was part of Talent Innovation and Entrepreneurship Project of Lanzhou No. 2016-RC-58
Received  2020-07-14
Accepted  2020-08-07
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.12.008
Cite this article as: Deng J, Wang J, Li SL, et al. The value of routine MRI combined with diffusion-weighted imaging in the differential diagnosis of atypical liver abscess and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(12): 1119-1123. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.12.008.

[1]
Razumilava N, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma. Lancet, 2014, 383(9935): 2168-2179. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61903-0.
[2]
赵丽，赵心明.磁共振成像在肝内胆管细胞癌的诊断及疗效评估中的研究进展.磁共振成像, 2017, 8(10): 791-795. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.10.013.
[3]
周燕，经翔，丁建民,等.肝癌与不典型肝脓肿的超声造影鉴别(附5例误诊报告).中华超声影像学杂志, 2017, 26(6): 541-544. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4477.2017.06.016.
[4]
Kim JE, Kim HO, Bae K, et al. Differentiation of small intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from small liver abscess by dual source dual-energy CT quantitative parameters. Eur J Radiol, 2017, 92: 145-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.012.
[5]
华向东，傅熙博，郝志强,等.肝内胆管细胞癌的CT表现特征分析.中华医学杂志, 2014, 94(6): 449-451. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2014.06.013.
[6]
Choi SY, Kim YK, Min JH, et al. Added value of ancillary imaging features for differentiating scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(6): 2549-2560. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5196-y.
[7]
潘桔红，陈文卫，李蓬,等.细菌性肝脓肿不同临床病理分期的超声造影表现.中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2014, 11(12): 969-973. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2014.12.006.
[8]
Seo N, Kim DY, Choi JY. Cross-sectional imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Development, growth, spread, and prognosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2017, 209(2): W64-W75. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.16923.
[9]
李炳荣，肖扬锐，罗项超,等.肝内胆管细胞癌与不典型肝脓肿的MRI鉴别诊断.中华放射学杂志, 2019, 53(5): 370-374. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-1201.2019.05.008.
[10]
Gabata T, Kadoya M, Matsui O, et al. Dynamic CT of hepatic abscesses: significance of transient segmental enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2001, 176(3): 675-679. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760675.
[11]
Yamasaki S. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: macroscopic type and stage classification. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg, 2003, 10(4): 288-91. DOI: 10.1007/s00534-002-0732-8.
[12]
Parsai A, Zerizer I, Roche O, et al. Assessment of diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing focal liver lesions. Clin Imaging, 2015, 39(2): 278-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.016.
[13]
Li R, Wu G, Wang R. Application values of 3.0 T magnetic resonance diffusion weighted imaging for distinguishing liver malignant tumors and benign lesions. Oncol Lett, 2018, 15(2): 2091-2096. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.7565.
[14]
Chan JH, Tsui EY, Luk SH, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver: distinguishing hepatic abscess from cystic or necrotic tumor. Abdom Imaging, 2001, 26(2): 161-165. DOI: 10.1007/s002610000122.
[15]
陶奉明，刘爱连，刘静红,等.体素内非相干运动成像鉴别肝脓肿与囊变坏死肝恶性肿瘤的价值.磁共振成像, 2018, 9(9): 660-666. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2018.09.004.
[16]
Park HJ, Kim SH, Jang KM, et al. Differentiating hepatic abscess from malignant mimickers: value of diffusion-weighted imaging with an emphasis on the periphery of the lesion. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2013, 38(6): 1333-1341. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24112.

PREV The value of 3.0 T MR IVIM and DKI in evaluating benign and malignant breast lesions
NEXT The feasibility of semi-automatic segmentation technology for quantification of pancreatic fat: Comparative study with traditional ROI methods
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn