Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging predicts individual future liver performance after liver resection for cancer.
Adenocarcinoma
/ physiopathology
Aged
Bile Duct Neoplasms
/ physiopathology
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
/ physiopathology
Cholangiocarcinoma
/ physiopathology
Embolization, Therapeutic
Female
Hepatectomy
Humans
Hypertrophy
Liver
/ pathology
Liver Diseases
/ complications
Liver Neoplasms
/ complications
Liver Regeneration
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Organ Size
Portal Vein
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Prognosis
Single-Blind Method
Treatment Outcome
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
12
06
2020
accepted:
19
08
2020
entrez:
2
12
2020
pubmed:
3
12
2020
medline:
15
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The risk of poor post-operative outcome and the benefits of surgical resection as a curative therapy require careful assessment by the clinical care team for patients with primary and secondary liver cancer. Advances in surgical techniques have improved patient outcomes but identifying which individual patients are at greatest risk of poor post-operative liver performance remains a challenge. Here we report results from a multicentre observational clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03213314) which aimed to inform personalised pre-operative risk assessment in liver cancer surgery by evaluating liver health using quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We combined estimation of future liver remnant (FLR) volume with corrected T1 (cT1) of the liver parenchyma as a representation of liver health in 143 patients prior to treatment. Patients with an elevated preoperative liver cT1, indicative of fibroinflammation, had a longer post-operative hospital stay compared to those with a cT1 within the normal range (6.5 vs 5 days; p = 0.0053). A composite score combining FLR and cT1 predicted poor liver performance in the 5 days immediately following surgery (AUROC = 0.78). Furthermore, this composite score correlated with the regenerative performance of the liver in the 3 months following resection. This study highlights the utility of quantitative MRI for identifying patients at increased risk of poor post-operative liver performance and a longer stay in hospital. This approach has the potential to inform the assessment of individualised patient risk as part of the clinical decision-making process for liver cancer surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33264327
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238568
pii: PONE-D-20-17935
pmc: PMC7710097
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03213314']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0238568Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0701127
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : SCD/20
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P008887/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: MK, GR, JJC, JMcG, RB, and JMB are employees and shareholders at Perspectum Ltd. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. There are no other actual or perceived conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Apr;119(5):594-603
pubmed: 30825223
HPB (Oxford). 2016 Oct;18(10):806-812
pubmed: 27506991
Hepatology. 2005 Jun;41(6):1313-21
pubmed: 15915461
Presse Med. 1954 May 5;62(33):709-12
pubmed: 13177441
Ann Surg. 2005 Dec;242(6):824-8, discussion 828-9
pubmed: 16327492
Ann Surg. 2008 Jan;247(1):49-57
pubmed: 18156923
World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Oct 28;25(40):6041-6052
pubmed: 31686761
Nucl Med Commun. 2019 Apr;40(4):297-307
pubmed: 30601245
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2013 Dec;30(4):413-6
pubmed: 24436570
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):1116-28
pubmed: 16545965
J Hepatol. 2014 Jan;60(1):69-77
pubmed: 24036007
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Apr;119(5):583-593
pubmed: 30816577
Surgery. 2019 Sep;166(3):247-253
pubmed: 31204072
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
HPB (Oxford). 2013 Aug;15(8):646-52
pubmed: 23458360
HPB (Oxford). 2005;7(3):226-30
pubmed: 18333195
J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2018 Mar 28;6(1):97-104
pubmed: 29577036
Liver Cancer. 2018 Mar;7(1):28-39
pubmed: 29662831
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep;43(9):1668-1681
pubmed: 28599872
Liver Int. 2020 Jul 30;:
pubmed: 32730664
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Oct;197(4):W706-12
pubmed: 21940543
J Hepatol. 1995 Jun;22(6):696-9
pubmed: 7560864
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 6;12(6):e0178920
pubmed: 28586376
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 11;380(15):1450-1462
pubmed: 30970190
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Jun;216(6):1049-56
pubmed: 23478548
Hepatology. 2020 Apr;71(4):1198-1212
pubmed: 30805949
Am J Pathol. 2018 Jun;188(6):1316-1327
pubmed: 29673755
BMC Cancer. 2018 Sep 12;18(1):890
pubmed: 30208871
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 15;8(1):9189
pubmed: 29907829
World J Gastroenterol. 2003 Feb;9(2):364-7
pubmed: 12532468
J Surg Res. 2015 Dec;199(2):378-85
pubmed: 26115811
Liver Int. 2017 Jul;37(7):1065-1073
pubmed: 27778429
J Gastrointest Surg. 2002 Jan-Feb;6(1):88-94
pubmed: 11986023
J Gastrointest Surg. 2020 Jun;24(6):1342-1351
pubmed: 31197694
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jul;27(7):2542-50
pubmed: 23355170
J Hepatol. 2016 Feb;64(2):308-315
pubmed: 26471505
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014 Nov;95(11):1003-16
pubmed: 24388431
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 Jan;44(1):72-84
pubmed: 30032383
Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019 Jan 14;3(1):50-56
pubmed: 30697610
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 13;8(1):9078
pubmed: 29899400
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Mar;47(5):631-644
pubmed: 29271504