4.7 Article

Prognostic value of baseline volumetric multiparametric MR imaging in neuroendocrine liver metastases treated with transarterial chemoembolization

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 10, 页码 5160-5171

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06100-3

关键词

Chemoembolization; Liver neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neuroendocrine tumors; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine whether baseline multiparametric MR imaging can predict overall survival (OS) and hepatic progression-free survival (HPFS) in patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases (NELMs) treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods This retrospective study included 84 NELMs patients treated with TACE. Tumor volume and volumetric measurements of arterial enhancement (AE), venous enhancement (VE), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were performed on baseline MR imaging. A maximum of one, two, and five index lesions were selected in each patient. OS was the primary endpoint and HPFS was the secondary endpoint. Prognostic values of volumetric multiparametric MR parameters for predicting OS and HPFS considering a maximum of one, two, and five index lesions were assessed. Results Prognostic values of volumetric multiparametric MR parameters for predicting OS and HPFS were similar regardless of the maximum number of index lesions. Multivariate survival analysis showed that baseline dominant tumor volume >= 73 cm(3), volumetric mean AE >= 45%, and mean VE >= 73% were independent prognostic factors for OS (HR 2.73; 95% CI 1.45, 5.15; HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.17, 0.63; HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17, 0.72, respectively) and HPFS (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.38, 3.84; HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25, 0.84; HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19, 0.57, respectively). OS and HPFS were similar in patients with low and high volumetric mean ADC. Conclusion Volumetric enhancement values and tumor volume of the dominant lesion on baseline MR imaging may act as prognostic factors for OS and HPFS in NELMs patients treated with TACE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据