Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
How to not miss alveolar echinococcosis in hepatic lesions suspicious for cholangiocellular carcinoma
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
How to not miss alveolar echinococcosis in hepatic lesions suspicious for cholangiocellular carcinoma
Do you wish to request the book?
How to not miss alveolar echinococcosis in hepatic lesions suspicious for cholangiocellular carcinoma
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
How to not miss alveolar echinococcosis in hepatic lesions suspicious for cholangiocellular carcinoma
2016
Overview
Purpose
Hepatic alveolar echinococcosis (AE) resembles intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) on radiological imaging. The purpose of this study was to identify criteria to discriminate AE from ICC with CT and MR Imaging.
Methods
One hundred and sixteen imaging studies of 94 patients (CT
n
= 65; MRI
n
= 51) diagnosed with AE (
n
= 55) or ICC (
n
= 39) were retrospectively reviewed by two blinded radiologists for lesion features including enhancement pattern and matrix composition. A consensus read was conducted in cases of disagreement. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression with bootstrapping were used for analysis.
Results
Using CT, no or septal enhancement and calcification yielded the highest values of sensitivity/specificity (90.9%/90.6% and 81.8%/96.9%) for AE. Using MRI, no or septal enhancement and cystic components achieved the highest sensitivity/specificity (90.9%/100.0% and 84.8%/66.7%) for AE. Multivariate logistic regression identified the following strong independent predictors for AE: for MRI, no or septal enhancement (odds ratio [OR] 322.4;
p
< 0.001); for CT, no or septal enhancement and calcification (OR 35.9 and 42.5;
p
< 0.001 and
p
< 0.01, respectively). No or septal enhancement and calcification demonstrated the highest interreader agreement (>90%).
Conclusion
Enhancement characteristics and matrix calcifications offer the strongest discriminating potential between AE and ICC with a high sensitivity, specificity, and interreader agreement.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
