4.7 Article

Hepatic neuroendocrine tumour: Apparent diffusion coefficient as a potential marker of prognosis associated with tumour grade and overall survival

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 2561-2571

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5248-3

Keywords

Liver; Neuroendocrine tumour; Magnetic resonance imaging; Overall Survival; Tumour grade

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the correlation between grade of hepatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) according to the 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) classification and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and to assess whether ADC value can predict overall survival (OS) after diagnosis of hepatic NETs. The study included 63 patients who underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with diffusion-weighted images for the evaluation of hepatic NETs. The correlation between qualitative and quantitative MR imaging findings, including ADC values, and WHO classifications was assessed. The association between ADC value and OS was analyzed. The ADC values and WHO classification of hepatic NETs were moderately negatively correlated in a statistically significant manner (rho = -0.57, p < 0.001). The OS rates were significantly different according to the ADC value (low ADC vs. high ADC, p = 0.006) as well as WHO classifications (G1+ G2 vs. G3, p = 0.038). However, multivariate analysis revealed that the only independent predictor for OS was a low ADC value (hazard ratio: 3.37, p = 0.010). There was a significant correlation between the ADC value of hepatic NETs and the WHO tumour grade. Additionally, the ADC value of a hepatic NET might be more accurate than the current WHO tumour grade for predicting OS. aEuro cent ADC values of hepatic NET and WHO tumour grade were negatively correlated. aEuro cent Lower ADC values of hepatic NET were significantly correlated with worse OS. aEuro cent ADC value might be more accurate than WHO grade for predicting OS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available