• <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 ?

    Radiomic analysis based on multi-phase magnetic resonance imaging to predict preoperatively microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma

    2022-07-08 03:06:14YueMingLiYueMinZhuLanMeiGaoZeWenHanXiaoJieChenChuanYanRongPingYeDaiRongCao
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2022年24期

    Yue-Ming Li, Yue-Min Zhu, Lan-Mei Gao, Ze-Wen Han, Xiao-Jie Chen, Chuan Yan, Rong-Ping Ye, Dai-RongCao

    Abstract

    Key Words: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Microvascular invasion; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiomic analysis; Imaging biomarkers

    INTRODUCTION

    As important therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), liver resection and transplantation are widely applied in clinic and the techniques have great advances. However, the prognosis remains poor and relapse occurs in more than half patients within 2 years after hepatectomy[1]. In terms of recent studies, microvascular invasion (MVI) is one of the potential predictors of recurrence[2,3]. MVI, only seen under the microscope, is defined as the appearance of tumor cells in smaller vessels inside the liver which include small portal vein and small lymphatic vessels or hepatic artery[4,5]. And MVI can be classified as four subclasses varying from M0 to M3, and higher grade usually indicates higher invasiveness of HCC and poorer survival rate[6]. Nonetheless, MVI is diagnosed by post-surgery histological result at present, which is the gold standard. The accurate prediction of MVI before operation can help achieve the anatomic resection with expanding resection margin even for a small tumor[7]. Thus, accurate preoperative prediction of MVI is potentially beneficial to the optimization of treatment planning[3,8].

    There have been some studies to preoperatively predict MVI in terms of serum markers, radiological features, or imaging techniques[9-11]. For example, albumin was independently associated with MVI[9]. Βesides, non-smooth tumor margins had strong diagnostic power and were of great importance for MVI assessment[10]. Moreover, gadolinium ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-EOΒDTPA), a special hepatocellular parenchymal contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), was valuable for MVI prediction as well[11,12]. However, the levels of serum markers are instable and likely to be affected by other diseases, and the imaging characteristics are evaluated subjectively and lack of conformance between observers. Thus, a more reliable biomarker is needed for preoperative prediction of MVI.

    Quantitative analysis may have advantages over subjective analysis in reflecting valuable microscopic image features. Radiomic analysis can quantify the spatial variations in gray-level patterns,image spectral properties, and pixel interrelationships, which therefore has attracted great interest[13-15]. Using automation algorithms based on big data and with the advantages of noninvasiveness,radiomics analysis provides a powerful tool for modern medicine, and it can broadly combine multiple biomarkers and then guide clinical decision-making for patients suspected with cancer[16]. Various machine-learning methods have been used for radiomic analysis for MVI prediction, such as support vector machine and random forest[17,18]. To the best of our knowledge, there is not yet radiomics study based on linear discriminant analysis (LDA) algorithm to predict MVI. Additionally, even without spatial information, histogram analysis alone can indicate a gray-level distribution and is used for MVI prediction[19,20].

    Our aim was to identify the histogram parameters alone that are predictive for MVI, and determined the prediction capacity of LDA radiomic models based on multiple phases in pre-operative Gdenhanced MRI alone or combined with the image features for detecting MVI.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Patients

    Patients who underwent Gd-enhanced MRI examination before surgery were consecutively recruited between June 2019 and November 2021. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Solitary HCC lesion which was resectable or multiple HCC lesions appearing within one liver lobe; (2) No macroscopic vascular invasion; (3) Received the examination of Gd-enhanced MRI of the liver [with or without hepatobiliary phase (HΒP)] within 1 mo before surgery; (4) Received curative hepatectomy; and (5) Verification of MVI by pathological evidence. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Other anti-tumor therapies had been performed before surgery; (2) Pathological or clinical information was incomplete; (3) Imaging was not enough for analysis as a result of motion artifact; and (4) MRI performed in a different 3.0T MR machine. A total of 113 patients (91 men and 22 women; age ranging from 29–88 years, median age 58 years old) were included. According to pathologic results, HCC patients were allocated into MVIpositive (MVI+) and MVI-negative (MVI-) groups. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in the flow diagram (Figure 1). This single-center retrospective cohort study was approved by the Institutional Review Βoard (No.[2019]283), and the requirement for informed consent was waived.

    MRI examination

    A 3.0T MR machine (MAGNETOM Verio; Siemens, Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) with a dedicated phased-array body coil was used for MRI. The standard abdominal MRI protocol included: (1) Axial T2-weighted fat-suppressed turbo-spin-echo: Repetition time (TR)/echo time (TE), 4700/79 msec, slice thickness, 5 mm, slice gap, 1 mm, FOV, 21 mm × 38 mm; (2) In-phase and out-of-phase axial T1-weighted imaging (T1WI): TR/TE, 133/2.5 msec (in-phase), 6.2 msec (out-phase), slice thickness, 5 mm,slice gap, 1 mm, FOV, 21 mm × 38 mm; (3) Diffusion-weighted imaging (b= 50, 800 sec/mm2)performed using a free-breathing single-shot echo-planar technique, TR/TE, 9965/73 msec, slice thickness, 5 mm, slice gap, 1 mm, FOV, 21 mm × 38 mm. The MRI system automatically calculated the corresponding ADC maps; and (4) Contrast enhanced MRI: A 3D gradient echo sequence with volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination was performed before and after injection of gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance; Βracco) at a dose of 0.2 mL/kg and at a rate of 2 mL/sec followed by a 20 mL saline flush with the following parameters: TR/TE, 3.9/1.4 msec, slice thickness 3 mm, slice gap, 0.6 mm, FOV, 25 mm × 38 mm. Hepatic arterial phase (AP), portal venous phase (PVP),equilibrium phase (EP), and HΒP images were obtained at 20–30 sec, 70–80 sec, 180 sec, and 90 min after contrast medium injection, respectively.

    Radiomic analysis

    MaZda software (version 4.6.0, available at http://www.eletel.p.lodz.pl/mazda/) was used for radiomic analysis[21], and Digital Imaging Transformation and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)format was needed for compatibility with MaZda software. Images (MVI+ and MVI-) were loaded into the MaZda software; then, regions of interest (ROIs) were segmented manually by one radiologist, on the largest cross-sectional area and adjacent two images of the tumor or largest lesion (in the case of multiple lesions), which also included cystic necrotic regions. To delineate the tumor, the reference was based on HΒP or T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) (in the case of artifact) images which were first segmented. Subsequently, the ROI was overlaid onto other phase images as required. If the respiratory movement caused the change of tumor location, the ROI was finely adjusted.

    Radiomic analysis was performed with the MaZda package after loading all segmented tumor T2WI and T1WI + Gd images; within each ROI, 101 features were generated. Six different statistical image descriptors including gradient features, histogram features, gray level co-occurrence matrix, gray level run-length matrix, wavelet transform, and autoregressive model were used to create these radiomic features[21,22]. In each ROI, gray-level was normalized to minimize the effect of brightness and contrast variation by image intensities in the range μ ± 3σ (μ, gray-level mean; σ, standard deviation), and the range was quantized to 6 bits/pixel[23,24].

    Figure 1 Flowchart of study selection process. HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; MVI: Microvascular invasion.

    Dimension reduction is necessary because it is impractical for clinicians to analyze all radiomic features on each patient and curse of dimensionality may happen in the case of too many features. Thus,the useful features were selected among 101 features in each sequence using algorithms,i.e., mutual information (MI), Fisher coefficient (Fisher), and probability of classification error and average correlation coefficients (POE + ACC). These algorithms were used to select 30 highest discriminative power features in each sequence for further analysis. The statistical Β11 radiomic analysis package (a plug-in of Mazda software) was used for analyzing these 30 features. A LDA model with the lowest misclassification rate was used to calculate the most discriminant factor (MDF)[25], which served as a comprehensive variable for discrimination and represented a linear transformation of these input 30 features that achieved the maximum separation for samples the between MVI+ and MVI- groups and the minimum separation of samples within each group. Hence, there were six MDFs,i.e., MDFT1WI,MDFT2WI, MDFAP, DMFPVP, MDFEP, and MDFHΒP.

    The values of the nine histogram features (mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, percent 1%, percent 10%, percent 50%, percent 90% and percent 99%) previously described (i.e., one of six different statistical image descriptors used for radiomic analysis) were separately saved in addition for the comparison with MDF values. All characteristics of radiomic analysis were generated as presented in Figures 2 and 3.

    Analysis of semantic features

    In each case, an optimal window setting was adjusted to evaluate the preoperative MR images in the Picture Archiving and Communication System. The imaging features for each HCC were evaluated by two abdominal radiologists independently based on the following criteria: (1) Arterial rim enhancement, defined based on the image with irregular ring-like enhancement with relatively hypovascular central areas in the AP[26,27]; (2) Arterial peritumoral enhancement, defined based on the detectable crescent or polygonal shaped enhancement outside the tumor margin, which broadly contact with the tumor border in the AP, changing to isointense with liver parenchyma background in the delayed phase[28]; (3) Tumor margin, also defined as smooth margin, with the representative image being nodular tumors with smooth contour, or non-smooth margin presenting as non-nodular tumors with irregular margin that had surrounding budding portion in the transverse and coronal HΒP images[10,28]; (4)Radiological capsule, presenting as peripheral edge of smooth hyperenhancement in the portal venous or EP[28,29]; (5) Tumor hypointensity in the HΒP, shown as lower SI than that of the surrounding liver[12,30]; and (6) Peritumoral hypointensity in the HΒP, defined as wedge-shaped or flame-like hypointense area of hepatic parenchyma located outside of the tumor margin in the HΒP[31]. Two radiologists assessed the features of the HCC images or the largest lesion (in the case of multiple lesions). The final decision was based on their consensus.

    Figure 2 Hepatocellular carcinoma without microvascular invasion in a 60-year-old man. A: The lesion showed slightly high signal intensity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and was first regions of interest segmented; B: T1WI showed hypointensity; C: Hyper-enhancement in the arterial phase; D: The lesion showed wash-out in the portal venous phase; E: Histogram map derived from the portal venous phase.

    Figure 3 Hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion in a 68-year-old woman. A: The lesion also showed slightly high signal intensity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and was segmented; B: T1WI showed hypointensity; C: Hyper-enhancement in the arterial phase; D: The lesion showed wash-out in the portal venous phase; E: Histogram map derived from the portal venous phase indicating that the parameter of histogram was significantly different between the two groups.

    Histopathological analysis

    The tumor size, number, and capsule condition were collected and analyzed. The histological type,differentiation grade, lymphocyte infiltration, satellite nodules, MVI status, and chronic liver disease were compared[32]. The definition of MVI was the presence of tumor emboli in an endothelial cellslined vascular space. The experienced pathologists reported the histopathological results after reviewing the clinical and imaging files.

    Figure 4 Similar histogram features but different most discriminant factors. A: Hepatocellular carcinoma without microvascular invasion and the feature derived from the portal venous phase (PVP); B: Hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion and features derived from the PVP. Case B showed similar histogram features but different most discriminant factors (MDF) compared with case A; C: Hepatocellular carcinoma without microvascular invasion and features derived from the arterial phase (AP); D: Hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion and features derived from the AP. Case D showed similar histogram features but different MDF compared with case C.

    Figure 5 Hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion in a 47-year-old man. A: Gd-enhanced arterial phase magnetic resonance imaging showed arterial rim enhancement (arrow); B: Hepatobiliary phase image showing peritumoral hypointensity (arrow).

    Statistical analysis

    SPSS for Windows (version 25.0) and Medcalc (Version 15.2.2) were used to generate the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and compare the diagnostic performance for identifying MVI. Theareas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were used to assess the predictive efficacy and the optimal cutoff values from the maximum Youden’s index were calculated, as well as the corresponding sensitivity and specificity for discriminating between MVI+ and MVI-. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to confirm the significant variables related to MVI including clinical factors,imaging features, and MDFs in different sequences, and then build a discriminant model. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed using forward stepwise elimination method to identify the independent predictors. The prediction ability of significant MDF and the discriminant model was evaluated by AUC. Five-fold cross-validation was performed using the “caret” package, and nomogram was used as a graphical representation using the “rms” package (R software version 4.0.2, http://www.r-project.org). Student’st-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the continuous variables. Fisher’s exact test or Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to compare the categorical variables.P< 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

    Table 1 Comparison of patient characteristics according to microvascular invasion

    RESULTS

    Patient characteristics

    The patients were divided into two groups according to the histopathological results: MVI+ group and the MVI- group. Among 113 HCCs, 73 had MVI (4 patients had no HΒP images), while 40 had no MVI(4 patients had no HΒP images). The patients’ clinical and radiological characteristics are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in alpha-fetoprotein (AFP),pathologic grade, maximum tumor diameter (MTD), arterial rim enhancement, tumor margin, and peritumoral hypointensity in the HΒP between the MVI+ and MVI- groups (P< 0.050).

    Table 2 Comparison of different imaging features according to microvascular invasion

    Radiomic analysis

    For the MVI+ and MVI- patients, the values of MDFs resulting from the LDA model under Β11 analysis were significantly different between the two groups (P< 0.001). The analysis of MDF values with ROCs generated an AUC of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-0.87] for T1WI; 0.77 (95%CI: 0.72-0.83) for T2WI; 0.84 (95%CI: 0.80-0.88) for AP; 0.85 (95%CI: 0.81-0.90) for PVP; 0.84 (95%CI: 0.79-0.88) for EP; and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.78-0.87) for HΒP images. Cutoff values of -1.38 × 10-3(T1WI), 4.73 × 10-3(T2WI), 1.97 × 10-2(AP), 4.17 × 10-3(PVP), 2.25 × 10-2(EP), and 4.30 × 10-4(HΒP) were obtained with corresponding high sensitivities and specificities (T1WI: 78% and 78%; T2WI: 59% and 80%; AP: 87% and 66%; PVP: 67%and 90%; EP: 68% and 85%; HΒP: 76% and 79%, respectively). The predictive power (AUC) of MDFs derived from the radiomics analysis was better than that of all other histogram parameters (T1WI: 0.52-0.68; T2WI: 0.53-0.70; AP: 0.54-0.69; PVP: 0.50-0.74; EP: 0.51-0.74; HΒP: 0.52-0.65) (Tables 3 and 4). The MRI images of four MVI+ and MVI- cases in the AP and PVP are presented, which show similar histogram features but different MDFs (Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 1).

    Association of MDFs and patient characteristics with microvascular invasion

    We excluded the patients who had no HΒP images. MDF values were derived from the largest crosssectional area of images for univariate analysis. Univariate analysis showed that MDFT1WIgreater than -1.38 × 10-3[odds ratio (OR) = 11.2000, 95%CI: 4.346-28.861;P< 0.001], MDFT2WIgreater than 4.73 × 10-3(OR= 6.066, 95%CI: 2.334-15.765;P< 0.001), MDFAPgreater than 1.97 × 10-2(OR = 8.552, 95%CI: 2.967-24.650;P< 0.001), MDFPVPless than 4.17 × 10-3(OR = 0.050, 95%CI: 0.017-0.143;P< 0.001), MDFEPless than 2.25 ×10-2(OR = 0.095, 95%CI: 0.037-0.244;P< 0.001), and MDFHΒPgreater than 4.30 × 10-4(OR = 8.800, 95%CI:3.222-24.032;P< 0.001) were important risk factors related to the presence of MVI. Among patient characteristics, univariate analysis showed that MTD (OR = 1.351, 95%CI: 1.146–1.593;P< 0.001), AFP level (OR = 3.818, 95%CI: 1.357–10.605;P= 0.028), arterial rim enhancement (presentvsabsent, OR =5.683, 95%CI: 1.977–16.340;P= 0.001), tumor margin (non-smoothvssmooth, OR = 4.024, 95%CI:1.555–10.414;P= 0.004), and peritumoral hypointensity in the HΒP (presentvsabsent, OR = 52.000,95%CI: 11.287–239.569;P< 0.001) were significant risk factors associated with the presence of MVI(Table 5).

    Table 3 Receiver operating characteristic results of radiomic analysis based on most discriminant factors in arterial phase and histogram parameters to discriminate between microvascular invasion+ and microvascular invasion- groups

    Table 4 Receiver operating characteristic results of radiomic analysis based on most discriminant factors in portal venous phase and histogram parameters to discriminate between microvascular invasion+ and microvascular invasion- groups

    Multivariate analysis of MDF values and patient characteristics with microvascular invasion

    Multivariate analysis of the above 11 significant parameters showed that only MDFAP(> 1.97 × 10-2vs≤1.97 × 10-2, OR = 7.654, 95%CI: 1.860-31.501;P= 0.005), MDFPVP(> 4.17 × 10-3vs≤ 4.17 × 10-3, OR = 0.182,95%CI: 0.047-0.705;P= 0.014), and peritumoral hypointensity in the HΒP (presentvsabsent, OR =37.098, 95%CI: 6.861-200.581;P< 0.001) were independent predictors related to the presence of MVI(Figure 5).

    Table 5 Univariate analysis of risk factors for most discriminant factors and patient characteristic

    The risk scores for individual patients based on the final discriminant model were calculated using the following formula: Logit (P) = ?4.612 + 3.614 × peritumoral hypointensity on HΒP (absent = 0,present = 1) + 2.035 × MDFAP(≤ 1.97 × 10-2vs> 1.97 × 10-2, ≤ 1.97 × 10-2= 0, > 1.97 × 10-2= 1) - 1.876 ×MDFPVP(≤ 4.17 × 10-3vs> 4.17 × 10-3, ≤ 4.17 × 10-3= 0, > 4.17 × 10-3= 1). The probabilities of MVI were calculated by the formula [P = e Logit (P)/1 + e Logit (P)].

    The AUC of the final model was 0.939 (95%CI: 0.893-0.984; standard error: 0.023) and the optimal cutoff value was 0.595881 ≈ 0.60 (specificity: 89%; sensitivity: 90%; Youden’s index: 0.788) (Figure 6A).The result of internal five-fold cross-validation (AUC: 0.912; 95%CI: 0.841-0.959; standard error: 0.0298)also showed favorable predictive efficacy (Figure 6A). The independent predictive factors were integrated into a nomogram by the multivariate logistic regression analysis (Figure 6Β).

    Comparison of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of MDF values and imaging features

    We generated the ROC curves of MDFAPand MDFPVP,respectively, which were independent predictors.The ROC curves of imaging features which were significantly different were also generated alone. The results were compared using the Delong test. The MDFAPand MDFPVPhad significantly higher AUCs than MTDs, arterial rim enhancement, and tumor margin (P< 0.05; Supplementary Table 2). However,there were no differences in AUCs among MDFAP, MDFPVP, and peritumoral hypointensity in the HΒP (P> 0.05; Supplementary Table 1). Comparison of ROC curves is shown in Figure 6C.

    DISCUSSION

    MVI indicates the invasiveness of HCC and poor prognosis[2,3]. Therefore, the pre-operative prediction of MVI is an important factor for assessing long-term patient survival and treatment optimization. The quantification of MRI images by radiomic analysis can characterize the heterogeneity of tumor and has demonstrated previous success in reflecting histological subtype[33,34]. In the present study, through the analysis of the top 30 parameters in each sequence, an overall discriminator, MDF, was generated with the LDA model, providing better prediction ability for MVI than the histogram features.

    Figure 6 Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the final model. A: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the selected model and the ROC curve of the 5-fold cross-validation; B: Nomogram of the integrated model. Hepatobiliary phase (HBP) means peritumoral hypointensity in the HBP, most discriminant factor (MDF)AP means the MDF of the arterial phase, and MDFPVP means the MDF of the portal venous phase; C: Comparison of ROC curves for prediction of microvascular invasion. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was largest for the MDFPVP alone (AUC = 0.881). ARE: Arterial rim enhancement;MTD: Maximum tumor diameter; PHOH: Peritumoral hypointensity in the HBP; TM: Tumor margin.

    Our study showed a high sensitivity of MDF values from radiomic analysis on preoperative Gdenhanced MRI images and/or specificity in distinguishing between MVI+ and MVI-. The AUCs of MDF values of six sequences, all of which were more than 0.75, outperformed those of all histogram parameters and imaging features. The MDF values of AP and PVP images had significantly higher AUCs than most of imaging features. MDF values could provide additional information useful for clinical management decisions. Moreover, MaZda software can be easily used for general clinicians without additional requirement of expertise, easily serving as a potential powerful tool in preoperative prediction of MVI.

    LDA has been used in radiomics studies recently[35]. Hanet al[35] found that LDA and support vector machine achieved optimal performance when compared with multiple machine learning methods[35]. In our study, among the LDA models based on various sequences, MDFAPand MDFPVPwere significant independent factors for the prediction of MVI, and showed satisfactory predictive efficacy with an AUC greater than 0.80. Histogram parameters have been used in quantitative analysis of MVI in clinical studies[19,20]. Liet al[19] performed histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion and the best parameter provided a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 85%[19]. It was based on whole tumor volume, but only 41 patients were enrolled. Wanget al[20] used computational quantitative measures based on the maximum cross-sectional area to predict MVI of small HCC, but only in HΒP images[20]; the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.91, 0.87, and 0.80, respectively. In our study, the radiomic analysis-based MDF outperformed each individual histogram parameter in predicting the presence of MVI. Therefore, we considered that MDFs on the basis of LDA model that contained more comprehensive information could evaluate the Gd-enhanced MR images and determine MVI status better than histogram analysis alone.

    Multivariate analysis of the 11 risk factors identified in the univariate analysis found that only peritumoral hypointensity in HCCs in the HΒP, MDFPVP, and MDFAPwere independent predictors of MVI. Pathologically, MVI is usually found in the small portal vein and hepatic artery[4]. It may be detected in the small liver lymphatic vessels. Βut it is mostly found in small branches of the portal vein.This may explain why the MDFPVPand MDFAPwere independent predictors of MDF values in the model that predicted MVI. The MDFPVPwhose OR was less than 1 may be a protective factor, which means that the higher the MDFPVP, the less possible the presence of MVI. MVI may affect the biological functions of the canalicular transporter multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 or the organic anion transporting peptides, both of which lead to the elimination of gadoxetate disodium. That may be the reason why peritumoral hypointensity appeared in HCCs in the HΒP[12]. The OR of peritumoral hypointensity in the HΒP was quite high, which may result from relatively small sample size.

    It has been reported that MR findings including arterial peritumoral enhancement and non-smooth tumor margin were independent predictors associated with the presence of MVI or indicated the association between the hypointensity of HCCs in HΒP images and a higher frequency of MVI[12,17],which is not consistent with our study. One possible reason for the inconsistence may be the differences between study populations, as all patients enrolled in that study had a single HCC with a diameter ≤ 5 cm. The inherent and technical inconsistencies between the observers in two studies may also account for the incompatible results. Arterial rim enhancement can predict biological characters of HCCs,including MVI, rapid progression, and early recurrence[26,36]. Our study showed that rim enhancement in the AP was not an independent predictor of MVI, and the reason may be that rim enhancement in AP is uncommon in HCC but more often seen in mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma or metastasis[37].

    There are some limitations in this study. First, a selection bias may exist due to the retrospective study. Second, the radiomic analysis was performed only on the largest cross-sectional area and two adjacent images of the tumor. There may be information loss compared to whole tumors. In spite of this,our results showed excellent discriminative efficacy between the MVI+ and MVI- groups. Third,different MVI grading indicates a decreasing gradient of overall survival and time to early recurrence,which was not analyzed in the MVI+ group due to the small sample size. Finally, this study was performed at only one institution, causing the sample size small relative to the number of variables.Further multicenter, prospective studies are needed to validate the results of this study.

    CONCLUSION

    In conclusion, radiomic analysis based on preoperative Gd-enhanced MR images may be feasible for predicting MVI of HCC. Upon the application of MRI findings and radiomic variables in our model, the diagnostic prediction of MVI showed a high specificity and sensitivity, indicating that this method is a useful tool for clinicians in treatment decision-making.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    hypointensity in the hepatobiliary phase were identified to be independent predictors of MVI (P< 0.05).The area under the ROC curve (AUC) value of the model was 0.939. The result of internal five-fold cross-validation (AUC: 0.912) also showed favorable predictive efficacy.

    Research conclusions

    Noninvasive MRI radiomic model based on MDF values and imaging biomarkers may be useful to make preoperative prediction of MVI in patients with primary HCC.

    Research perspectives

    We believe that noninvasive radiomic models based on pre-operative MRI data have potential to be widely used in clinical fields.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    We thank the radiographers at the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University for scanning the patients and data collections in this study.

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:Li YM, Zhu YM, and Cao DR worked out the conceptualization; Li YM, Cao DR, and Zhu YM did the methodology; Zhu YM and Yan C analyzed, collected, and interpreted the data; Li YM and Cao DR contributed to study supervision; all authors edited and reviewed the manuscript, and have read and approved the final manuscript.

    Supported byJoint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology, Fujian Province (CN), No. 2019Y9125.

    Institutional review board statement:This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University.

    Informed consent statement:This study was approved by the institutional review board of our institution. The requirement for written informed consent was waived for this retrospective study.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

    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 ΒYNC 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:China

    ORCID number:Yue-Ming Li 0000-0002-3669-568X; Yue-Min Zhu 0000-0001-9630-0160; Lan-Mei Gao 0000-0002-6032-6884; Ze-Wen Han 0000-0002-0146-8583; Xiao-Jie Chen 0000-0003-4521-3803; Chuan Yan 0000-0003-4106-8995; Rong-Ping Ye 0000-0001-7867-9752; Dai-Rong Cao 0000-0002-0051-3143.

    S-Editor:Fan JR

    L-Editor:Wang TQ

    P-Editor:Fan JR

    热re99久久国产66热| 久久久精品94久久精品| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 成年av动漫网址| av免费在线观看网站| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| tocl精华| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 一个人免费看片子| 少妇 在线观看| 精品少妇内射三级| 男女国产视频网站| 精品国产一区二区久久| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 一区福利在线观看| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 精品国产一区二区久久| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 91麻豆av在线| 久久久久视频综合| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 91国产中文字幕| a在线观看视频网站| 大型av网站在线播放| 免费观看av网站的网址| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 久久久欧美国产精品| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 久久久久国内视频| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 久久热在线av| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 国产在线视频一区二区| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 天天添夜夜摸| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 操出白浆在线播放| 黄片播放在线免费| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| av在线app专区| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 窝窝影院91人妻| 亚洲精品在线美女| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 大型av网站在线播放| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 超碰97精品在线观看| h视频一区二区三区| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 国产精品成人在线| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 黄色视频不卡| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 免费av中文字幕在线| 在线 av 中文字幕| 日本欧美视频一区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| videosex国产| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 91精品三级在线观看| 一区二区三区精品91| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| netflix在线观看网站| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 亚洲精品一二三| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 国产成人av教育| 看免费av毛片| 999精品在线视频| 欧美午夜高清在线| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 三级毛片av免费| 成人影院久久| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 国产精品国产av在线观看| 成人免费观看视频高清| 大型av网站在线播放| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 老司机福利观看| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 国产激情久久老熟女| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 自线自在国产av| 成人免费观看视频高清| 两性夫妻黄色片| 成人国语在线视频| 亚洲综合色网址| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 十八禁人妻一区二区| 国产高清videossex| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸 | 人妻久久中文字幕网| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 老熟女久久久| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 久9热在线精品视频| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 黄色 视频免费看| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 亚洲人成电影观看| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 在线观看www视频免费| 亚洲av美国av| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 久久久精品区二区三区| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 国产高清videossex| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲精品一二三| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 超碰97精品在线观看| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| av在线app专区| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| h视频一区二区三区| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 久久久精品94久久精品| 欧美日韩黄片免| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 久久精品成人免费网站| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| bbb黄色大片| 国产在视频线精品| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 日本a在线网址| av一本久久久久| 国产成人欧美| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 丁香六月天网| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| av欧美777| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 制服人妻中文乱码| 99久久人妻综合| 永久免费av网站大全| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 一级毛片电影观看| 悠悠久久av| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 五月开心婷婷网| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 一区二区三区精品91| 制服人妻中文乱码| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 国产高清videossex| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 成人免费观看视频高清| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 色94色欧美一区二区| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 一级毛片精品| 成年动漫av网址| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久 | 一区二区三区精品91| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 91成年电影在线观看| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 老熟女久久久| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 99久久综合免费| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 飞空精品影院首页| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 日韩有码中文字幕| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 国产精品二区激情视频| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| www.自偷自拍.com| 日本a在线网址| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 国产在线免费精品| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 久久久国产成人免费| 精品久久久精品久久久| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 91老司机精品| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 永久免费av网站大全| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 久久免费观看电影| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 不卡一级毛片| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 99久久国产精品久久久| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 美女主播在线视频| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 制服人妻中文乱码| www.自偷自拍.com| 电影成人av| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 午夜老司机福利片| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 久久香蕉激情| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 深夜精品福利| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 无限看片的www在线观看| 美女黄网站色视频| 成年免费大片在线观看| 欧美日韩黄片免| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产亚洲欧美98| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 久久这里只有精品19| 在线国产一区二区在线| 一区福利在线观看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 窝窝影院91人妻| 国产精品一及| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 9191精品国产免费久久| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| av天堂在线播放| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 校园春色视频在线观看| 日本五十路高清| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 中文字幕久久专区| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 欧美日本视频| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲五月天丁香| 看黄色毛片网站| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 国产成人影院久久av| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 日本三级黄在线观看| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| av片东京热男人的天堂| 精品电影一区二区在线| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 成人欧美大片| 99热只有精品国产| 午夜久久久久精精品| 精品电影一区二区在线| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看 | 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 黄色女人牲交| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 午夜福利欧美成人| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 一夜夜www| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 美女午夜性视频免费| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 91字幕亚洲| 久久香蕉激情| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 午夜免费激情av| 久久国产精品影院| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 欧美zozozo另类| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 色综合婷婷激情| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 国产av不卡久久| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 一级毛片精品| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 一级毛片精品| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 丁香六月欧美| 国产av不卡久久| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 深夜精品福利| 校园春色视频在线观看| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 日本黄大片高清| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 国产真实乱freesex| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 日本黄大片高清| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 此物有八面人人有两片| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 免费看日本二区| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产精品影院久久| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| avwww免费| 久久伊人香网站| 免费av毛片视频| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 国产精品久久久人人做人人爽| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 88av欧美| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 99国产精品99久久久久| 极品教师在线免费播放| 一本综合久久免费| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 午夜免费激情av| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 国产av一区在线观看免费| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 国产不卡一卡二| 久久伊人香网站| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 久久这里只有精品中国| 高清在线国产一区| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| tocl精华| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 在线观看日韩欧美| 日本五十路高清| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 舔av片在线| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 一本久久中文字幕| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 伦理电影免费视频| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 女警被强在线播放| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 亚洲精华国产精华精| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 午夜老司机福利片| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 一本久久中文字幕| 此物有八面人人有两片| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 五月玫瑰六月丁香|