4.5 Article

Comparison of CT findings with resected specimens after chemoembolization with iodized oil for hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 175, 期 3, 页码 699-704

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.175.3.1750699

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. We assessed the role of dynamic CT in the evaluation of the efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization with iodized oil for hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined 41 hepatocellular carcinoma lesions (mean diameter, 5.0 cm) in 40 patients (mean age, 60.6 years) who underwent transarterial injection of iodized oil alone (n = 3) or emulsion of iodized oil and doxorubicin hydrochloride (n = 10) followed by gelatin sponge particles (n = 27) and subsequent hepatectomy. On dynamic CT performed within 3 weeks before oily transarterial chemoembolization and within 4 weeks before surgery, we calculated the rate of necrosis on the basis of the assumption that the portion that retained iodized oil represented necrosis. We also calculated the reduction rate of the tumor. CT findings were compared with pathologic findings of resected specimens. RESULTS. Pathologic specimens and the necrosis rate measured on CT showed a good correlation (r = 0.83) when the portion of tumor that retained iodized oil was considered necrosis. No correlation existed if the portion that retained iodized oil was considered viable. We noted no significant correlation (r = 0.38) between the reduction rate of the tumor and necrosis rate. Also, we noted no correlation (r = 0.52) between the interval between transarterial oily chemoembolization and surgery and the reduction rate of the tumor. CONCLUSION. CT is suitable for the evaluation of the efficacy of oily chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma on the basis of the assumption that the portion of tumor that retains iodized oil is necrotic. The rate of tumor size reduction measured on CT did not correlate with the therapeutic effect of chemoembolization.

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