Skip to main content

Table 3 Association between imaging features and late HCC recurrence in univariable Cox analysis and Fine-Gray competing risk analysis

From: Prediction of late recurrence after curative-intent resection using MRI-measured spleen volume in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis

Imaging features

Univariable Cox regression analysis

Univariable competing risk analysis

HR (95%CI)

p value

HR (95%CI)

p value

LI-RADS major features

 Nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement

0.46 (0.21–0.99)

0.049

0.47 (0.20–1.10)

0.084

 Nonperipheral “washout”

1.41 (0.82–2.44)

0.217

1.43 (0.83–2.46)

0.202

 Enhancing “capsule”

0.74 (0.37–1.49)

0.405

0.76 (0.36–1.62)

0.480

 Tumor size (cm)

1.03 (0.95–1.12)

0.482

1.01 (0.93–1.10)

0.762

LI-RADS ancillary features

 Nonenhancing “capsule”

5.65 (2.01–15.93)

0.001

5.80 (2.33–14.44)

< 0.001

 Nodule-in-nodule architecture

0.88 (0.55–1.39)

0.576

0.83 (0.53–1.32)

0.435

 Mosaic architecture

1.30 (0.77–2.20)

0.328

1.27 (0.76–2.14)

0.371

 Blood products in mass

1.23 (0.75–2.01)

0.406

1.18 (0.72–1.93)

0.516

 Fat in mass, more than adjacent liver

1.20 (0.77–1.87)

0.429

1.23 (0.80–1.91)

0.345

 Mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity

0.67 (0.16–2.75)

0.578

1.03 (0.24–4.49)

0.975

 Corona enhancement

0.93 (0.58–1.47)

0.747

0.88 (0.56–1.40)

0.602

 Fat sparing in solid mass

0.83 (0.26–2.63)

0.751

0.88 (0.27–2.91)

0.835

 Iron sparing in solid mass

1.30 (0.67–2.52)

0.441

1.16 (0.57–2.34)

0.692

 TP hypointensitya

0.74 (0.09–5.84)

0.774

0.74 (0.14–4.02)

0.723

 Marked HBP hypointensitya

0.52 (0.17–1.56)

0.241

0.52 (0.18–1.49)

0.229

LR-M features

 Rim arterial phase hyperenhancement

0.48 (0.07–3.43)

0.463

0.44 (0.06–3.41)

0.439

 Peripheral “washout”

1.50 (0.21–10.84)

0.685

1.48 (0.15–14.91)

0.740

 Targetoid restriction

0.70 (0.17–2.89)

0.626

0.71 (0.14–3.57)

0.687

 Targetoid TP or HBP appearancea

12.52 (2.41–64.9)

0.003

12.52 (3.13–49.9)

< 0.001

 Marked diffusion restriction

0.76 (0.40–1.43)

0.394

0.81 (0.42–1.56)

0.536

 Infiltrative appearance

1.66 (0.61–4.55)

0.322

1.25 (0.46–3.42)

0.665

 Necrosis or severe ischemia

0.94 (0.58–1.52)

0.805

0.83 (0.51–1.35)

0.450

LI-RADS category

 LR-4

Ref

Ref

 LR-5

0.79 (0.41–1.54)

0.496

0.77 (0.39–1.53)

0.468

 LR-M

0.63 (0.19–2.01)

0.434

0.65 (0.18–2.37)

0.512

Other tumor-related prognostic features

 ≥ 50% arterial phase hyperenhancement

0.87 (0.51–1.47)

0.605

0.93 (0.54–1.60)

0.781

 Mild-moderate T2 peritumoral hyperintensity

0.80 (0.38–1.67)

0.550

0.77 (0.36–1.67)

0.516

 PVP peritumoral hypoenhancement

1.85 (1.02–3.38)

0.044

1.66 (0.91–3.05)

0.105

 HBP peritumoral hypointensitya

2.03 (0.66–6.26)

0.219

2.03 (0.70–5.91)

0.203

 Markedly low ADC value

0.59 (0.22–1.62)

0.307

0.60 (0.21–1.73)

0.358

 Complete capsule

0.80 (0.49–1.30)

0.367

0.81 (0.50–1.33)

0.406

 Non-smooth tumor margin

1.01 (0.62–1.61)

0.990

0.99 (0.62–1.58)

0.966

 Intratumoral artery

1.15 (0.63–2.09)

0.648

1.07 (0.60–1.93)

0.810

 Parallels blood pool enhancement

2.56 (0.35–18.47)

0.352

2.77 (2.15–3.56)

< 0.001

 Satellite nodule

1.72 (0.63–4.71)

0.291

1.24 (0.42–3.67)

0.701

 Tumor growth subtype

  Single nodule

Ref

Ref

  Single nodule with extranodular growth

0.89 (0.57–1.38)

0.599

0.91 (0.59–1.42)

0.690

  Confluent multinodular or infiltrative type

4.91 (0.64–37.49)

0.125

3.86 (0.95–7.86)

0.902

  1. Hazard ratio (95%CI) was calculated by comparing the presence versus absence of the corresponding imaging feature except for the LI-RADS category and tumor growth subtype
  2. TP transitional phase, HBP hepatobiliary phase, PVP portal venous phase, ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, HR hazard ratio
  3. aFor imaging features achieved from TP or HBP, gadoxetate acid disodium was used in only 46 patients