0 97

Cited 2 times in

Hepatobiliary versus Extracellular MRI Contrast Agents in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Detection: Hepatobiliary Phase Features in Relation to Disease-free Survival

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author김동규-
dc.contributor.author김명진-
dc.contributor.author박미숙-
dc.contributor.author안찬식-
dc.contributor.author임준석-
dc.contributor.author정용은-
dc.contributor.author최진영-
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-11T06:44:09Z-
dc.date.available2020-02-11T06:44:09Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.issn0033-8419-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/174822-
dc.description.abstractBackground MRI with hepatobiliary contrast material is more sensitive than MRI with extracellular contrast material in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Purpose To determine whether postsurgical outcomes differ between patients who undergo MRI with hepatobiliary contrast material and those who undergo MRI with extracellular contrast material by analyzing disease-free survival (DFS) rates after curative resection of HCC. Materials and Methods From January 2014 to December 2015, 170 treatment-naïve patients who underwent contrast-enhanced preoperative liver MRI and curative hepatic resection for HCC were retrospectively included and observed until September 2018. DFS rates were compared between the two groups, which were classified based on the type of MRI contrast agent used. The MRI with hepatobiliary contrast material group was further divided into a hypointense nodule-positive group and a hypointense nodule-negative group according to the presence of residual hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointense nodules without arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) after surgery. DFS rates were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared among the three groups by using a log-rank test. Results Patients were included in either the MRI with extracellular contrast material group (n = 53; mean age, 60 years ± 9 [standard deviation]) or the hepatobiliary contrast material group (n = 117; mean age, 60 years ± 8; 26 patients were in the hypointense nodule-positive group). Over a median follow-up period of 34.1 months, median DFS rates did not differ between the extracellular contrast material group (35.8 months) and the hepatobiliary contrast material group (43.5 months) (P = .46). However, median DFS in the extracellular contrast material group was longer than that in the hypointense nodule-positive group (35.8 months vs 25.8 months, P < .001) and shorter than that in the hypointense nodule-negative group (35.8 months vs 48.6 months, P = .02). Conclusion Patients who undergo preoperative MRI with hepatobiliary contrast material and resection of hepatobiliary phase hypointense nodules without arterial phase hyperenhancement may show better disease-free survival.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherRadiological Society of North America-
dc.relation.isPartOfRADIOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.titleHepatobiliary versus Extracellular MRI Contrast Agents in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Detection: Hepatobiliary Phase Features in Relation to Disease-free Survival-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiology (영상의학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDong Kyu Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChansik An-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYong Eun Chung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJin-Young Choi-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJoon Seok Lim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMi-Suk Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMyeong-Jin Kim -
dc.identifier.doi10.1148/radiol.2019190414-
dc.contributor.localIdA05609-
dc.contributor.localIdA00426-
dc.contributor.localIdA00426-
dc.contributor.localIdA01463-
dc.contributor.localIdA01463-
dc.contributor.localIdA02268-
dc.contributor.localIdA02268-
dc.contributor.localIdA03408-
dc.contributor.localIdA03408-
dc.contributor.localIdA03662-
dc.contributor.localIdA03662-
dc.contributor.localIdA04200-
dc.contributor.localIdA04200-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ02596-
dc.identifier.eissn1527-1315-
dc.identifier.pmid31592730-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2019190414-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Dong Kyu-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김동규-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김명진-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김명진-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor박미숙-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor박미숙-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor안찬식-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor안찬식-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor임준석-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor임준석-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor정용은-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor정용은-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor최진영-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor최진영-
dc.citation.volume293-
dc.citation.number3-
dc.citation.startPage594-
dc.citation.endPage604-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationRADIOLOGY, Vol.293(3) : 594-604, 2019-
Appears in Collections:
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.