4.5 Article

Prognostic impact of tumor vascularity on CT in resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

HPB
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 359-369

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.06.424

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Center Research Grant [1810864-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the vascularity of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) on computed tomography (CT) images and its association with ICC recurrence after surgery and prognosis after recurrence. The study found that hypervascular ICC was associated with longer recurrence-free survival and better survival after recurrence.
Background: We investigated the vascularity of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) on computed tomography (CT) images and its association with ICC recurrence after surgery and prognosis after recurrence. Methods: In this retrospective study, the data of patients who underwent resection with curative intent for ICC between March 2001 and July 2017 were reviewed. Clinicopathologic factors including tumor vascularity (hypovascular, rim-enhancement, and hypervascular) on CT that could affect recurrence-free survival (RFS) were assessed. The association between the vascularity of recurrent ICC and survival after recurrence was also analyzed. Results: Overall, 147 patients were enrolled and followed up for a median of 36.1 months of which, 101 (68.7%) experienced ICC recurrence. Hypervascularity of ICC showed better RFS than other vascularities [rim-enhanced image hazard ratio (HR), 3.893; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.700-8.915, p = 0.001; hypovascular image HR, 6.241; 95% CI, 2.670-14.586, p < 0.001]. The hypervascular recurrent ICC was also significantly associated with better survival after recurrence (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Hypervascular ICC was associated with a longer RFS and better prognosis after recurrence. The vascularity of ICC on CT may be a noninvasive, accessible, and useful prognostic index, and should be considered while planning treatment.

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

4.5
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