Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2019
Differences in early imaging features and pattern of progression on CT between intrahepatic biliary metastasis of colorectal origin and intrahepatic non-mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma in patients with extrabiliary malignancy.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Min Ji Hye, Jang Kyung Mi, Cha Dong Ik, Kang Tae Wook, Kim Seong Hyun, Choi Seo-Youn, Min Kwangseon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the differences in early imaging features and progression pattern on CT between intrahepatic biliary metastasis (IBM) and non-mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (NMFC) in patients with extrabiliary malignancy.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 35 patients who were surgically and pathologically confirmed with IBM (n = 14) or NMFC (n = 21) at the time of or after surgery for extrabiliary malignancy. Two observers evaluated the following aspects of biliary lesions on initial or follow-up CT images: location, characteristics of intrahepatic duct (IHD) dilatation, presence of duct wall thickening, and periductal infiltration lesion or periductal expansile mass.
RESULTS: All IBMs were associated with colorectal cancer (p = 0.032). As early imaging features on CT, smooth tapered localized IHD dilatation without duct wall thickening and peripheral duct involvement were observed significantly more often in IBM, and IHD dilatation with abrupt tapering or irregularity of transition site and bile duct wall thickening were significantly more common in NMFC (all p < 0.05). Regarding progression pattern, periductal expansile mass was present only in IBM, whereas periductal infiltrative lesion was present only in NMFC (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: In the differentiation between IBM and NMFC in patients with extrabiliary malignancy, the differences in early imaging features and progression pattern of the two diseases revealed in this study would be helpful for diagnosis.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 35 patients who were surgically and pathologically confirmed with IBM (n = 14) or NMFC (n = 21) at the time of or after surgery for extrabiliary malignancy. Two observers evaluated the following aspects of biliary lesions on initial or follow-up CT images: location, characteristics of intrahepatic duct (IHD) dilatation, presence of duct wall thickening, and periductal infiltration lesion or periductal expansile mass.
RESULTS: All IBMs were associated with colorectal cancer (p = 0.032). As early imaging features on CT, smooth tapered localized IHD dilatation without duct wall thickening and peripheral duct involvement were observed significantly more often in IBM, and IHD dilatation with abrupt tapering or irregularity of transition site and bile duct wall thickening were significantly more common in NMFC (all p < 0.05). Regarding progression pattern, periductal expansile mass was present only in IBM, whereas periductal infiltrative lesion was present only in NMFC (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: In the differentiation between IBM and NMFC in patients with extrabiliary malignancy, the differences in early imaging features and progression pattern of the two diseases revealed in this study would be helpful for diagnosis.