0 947

Cited 56 times in

Curative Resection of Single Primary Hepatic Malignancy: Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Category LR-M Portends a Worse Prognosis

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author김도영-
dc.contributor.author김명진-
dc.contributor.author김승섭-
dc.contributor.author안찬식-
dc.contributor.author정용은-
dc.contributor.author최진영-
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-20T08:21:58Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-20T08:21:58Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.issn0361-803X-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/161125-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between preoperative Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) categories and prognosis after curative resection of single hepatic malignancies in patients with chronic liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2010, 225 patients with chronic liver disease underwent resection of single hepatic malignant tumors (218 hepatocellular carcinomas, three cholangiocarcinomas, four biphenotypic carcinomas) after undergoing gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Two radiologists retrospectively categorized the tumors into LI-RADS categories. Differences in disease-free survival duration between categories were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test. RESULTS: Reviewer 1 categorized two (0.9%) patients as having LR-3, 53 (23.6%) LR-4, 159 (70.7%) LR-5, and 11 (4.9%) LR-M lesions. The corresponding numbers for reviewer 2 were six (2.7%) LR-3, 30 (13.3%) LR-4, 178 (79.1%) LR-5, and 11 (4.9%) LR-M. The 2-year cumulative recurrence or death rates were 15.1% for lesions categorized LR-3 or LR-4 by reviewer 1, 31.7% for LR-5, and 60% for LR-M. For lesions categorized by reviewer 2 the corresponding rates were 20.6% for LR-3 or LR-4, 29% for LR-5, and 54.5% for LR-M. Disease-free survival was significantly worse among patients with lesions categorized as LR-M than for lesions categorized as LR-3 or LR-4 or as LR-5 (p < 0.01 for both reviewers). Disease-free survival did not significantly differ between patients with LR-3 or LR-4 and those with LR-5 lesions (reviewer 1, p = 0.301; reviewer 2, p = 0.291). CONCLUSION: Patients with tumors preoperatively categorized as LR-M may have a worse prognosis than those with tumors categorized LR-3, LR-4, or LR-5 after curative resection of single hepatic malignancy.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherSpringfield, Ill., Thomas-
dc.relation.isPartOfAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAdult Aged-
dc.subject.MESHAged, 80 and over-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular/diagnostic imaging*-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular/pathology-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular/surgery*-
dc.subject.MESHCholangiocarcinoma/diagnostic imaging*-
dc.subject.MESHCholangiocarcinoma/pathology-
dc.subject.MESHCholangiocarcinoma/surgery*-
dc.subject.MESHContrast Media-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHGadolinium DTPA-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHImage Interpretation, Computer-Assisted-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging*-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms/pathology-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms/surgery*-
dc.subject.MESHMagnetic Resonance Imaging/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHNeoplasm Recurrence, Local-
dc.subject.MESHPrognosis-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHSurvival Rate-
dc.subject.MESHTreatment Outcome-
dc.titleCurative Resection of Single Primary Hepatic Malignancy: Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Category LR-M Portends a Worse Prognosis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Internal Medicine-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChansik An-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSumi Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYong Eun Chung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDo-Young Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSeung-seob Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMyeong-Jin Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJin-Young Choi-
dc.identifier.doi10.2214/AJR.16.17478-
dc.contributor.localIdA00385-
dc.contributor.localIdA00426-
dc.contributor.localIdA05097-
dc.contributor.localIdA02268-
dc.contributor.localIdA03662-
dc.contributor.localIdA04200-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00116-
dc.identifier.eissn1546-3141-
dc.identifier.pmid28657851-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.16.17478-
dc.subject.keywordLiver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS)-
dc.subject.keywordMRI-
dc.subject.keywordgadoxetic acid-
dc.subject.keywordhepatocellular carcinoma-
dc.subject.keywordprognosis-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Do Young-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Myeong Jin-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Seung Seob-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameAn, Chan Sik-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChung, Yong Eun-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameChoi, Jin Young-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Do Young-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Myeong Jin-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorKim, Seung Seob-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorAn, Chan Sik-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChung, Yong Eun-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorChoi, Jin Young-
dc.citation.volume209-
dc.citation.number3-
dc.citation.startPage576-
dc.citation.endPage583-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationAMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, Vol.209(3) : 576-583, 2017-
dc.identifier.rimsid61014-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.