[Comparative study of ultra-high field diffusion-weighted MRI imaging between hepatocellular carcinoma and paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissues].

Objective: To investigate the differences in multi-b-value apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (eADC) between hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and paracancerous liver tissue, distant cancerous liver tissue, and background liver tissues by ultra-high field 3.0T diffusion-weighted (DWI) MRI imaging. Methods: Sixty-eight consecutive HCC cases confirmed by surgical pathology from January 2018 to October 2021 were enrolled and divided into a cirrhosis (n=39) and a non-cirrhosis group (n=29) according to the presence or absence of cirrhosis.The average ADC and eADC of liver tissues of paracancerous (including proximal and distal), distant cancerous, and background were measured by DWI images with diffusion sensitivity factors (b) of 50, 100, 400, 600 s/mm2, and 1 000 s/mm2, respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis H test and Bonferroni method were used to test the differences between the measured values of the five tissues. The statistical differences were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the five tissues by parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC). Results: The comparison of average ADC and eADC among five types of tissues in the liver cirrhosis group showed that the average ADC and eADC measured at b values of 50, 100, 400, and 600 s/mm2 had statistically significant differences (adjusted P<0.005) between cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distal paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue, as well as the average ADC measured at b=1 000 s/mm2 between cancerous and proximal paracancerous tissue. The average ADC and eADC in the non-cirrhosis group had statistically significant differences (adjusted P<0.005) between cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distant paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue measured at b values of 50, 100, and 400 s/mm2, respectively. The average ADC and eADC measured at b=600 s/mm2 showed statistically significant differences (adjusted P<0.005) between cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distal paracancerous, and distant cancerous liver tissue, as well as the average ADC measured at b=1 000 s/mm2 between cancerous and distal paracancerous, and distant cancerous liver tissue. The average ADC and eADC in the cirrhosis group had no statistically significant difference between the proximal paracancerous and the distant cancerous, as well as the background liver tissue measured at b-values of 50, 100, 400, 600, and 1 000 s/mm2, respectively (adjusted P>0.005), while there were statistically significant differences (adjusted P<0.005) in the average ADC values in the non-cirrhosis group between the proximal paracancerous and the distant paracancerous and background liver tissues at b=50 s/mm2, as well as the average ADC and eADC values between the proximal paracancerous and the distant liver tissues at b=100 s/mm2. The average ADC and eADC values measured in the cirrhosis group and non-cirrhosis group had no statistically significant difference between the distant paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue (adjusted P>0.005). The efficacy of average ADC and eADC in distinguishing five types of tissues (cancerous and proximal paracancerous, distant paracancerous, distant cancerous, and background liver tissue) showed that in the cirrhosis group, the diagnostic efficacy was best at b=50 s/mm2. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of average ADC was 0.815, 0.828, 0.855, and 0.855, respectively, and the AUC of average eADC was 0.815, 0.830, 0.856, and 0.855, respectively. The diagnostic efficacy was best in the non cirrhosis group at b=100 s/mm2, with average ADC AUCs of 0.787, 0.823, 0.841, and 0.821, and average eADC AUCs of 0.836, 0.874, 0.893, and 0.873, respectively. The AUC of the average ADC in the non-cirrhosis group for distinguishing between proximal paracancerous and distant cancerous liver tissues, as well as proximal paracancerous and background liver tissues, with b=50 s/mm2, were 0.605 and 0.604, respectively. The average AUC of ADC and eADC for distinguishing between proximal paracancerous and distant liver tissues with b=100 s/mm2 were 0.619 and 0.620, respectively. Conclusion: The average ADC and eADC measured by multiple b-values are helpful in distinguishing HCC from proximal paracancerous, distal paracancerous, distant-cancerous, and background liver tissues in patients with cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis, while the average ADC and eADC at b=50 s/mm2 and 100 s/mm2 exhibit differences between the proximal paracancerous from the distant cancerous liver tissue and background liver tissue in patients with non-cirrhosis.

Apparent diffusion coefficient and its standard deviation from diffusion-weighted imaging in preoperative predicting liver invasion by T3-staged resectable gallbladder carcinoma.

AIM: To evaluate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and its standard deviation (SDADC) in preoperative predicting liver invasion by T3-staged gallbladder carcinoma (GBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one consecutive patients with T3-staged resectable GBC were included and divided into two sets with (n=27) and without (n=14) liver invasion. All patients underwent DWI at b-values of 0, 20, 50, 80, 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1,000 s/mm2 with a 3 T magnetic resonance imaging scanner before surgery. ADC and SDADC of tumour-adjacent and tumour-distant liver tissues were measured on DWI, and were compared by Mann-Whitney U-tests. If there was a significant difference in any derived parameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess performance of this parameter to predict liver invasion. RESULTS: DWI could differentiate between patients with and without liver invasion when b = 0, 1,000 s/mm2 (AUCs of ADC and SDADC were 0.697 and 0.714, respectively). In patients with liver invasion, mean ADC and SDADC of tumour-adjacent liver tissue were lower than of tumour-distant liver tissue when b = 0, 800 s/mm2, and = 0, 1,000 s/mm2 (all p-values <0.05). To differentiate tumour-adjacent from tumour-distant liver tissues in patients with liver invasion, AUCs of ADC were 0.687 (b = 0, 800 s/mm2) and 0.680 (b = 0, 1,000 s/mm2), and AUCs of SDADC were 0.673 (b = 0, 800 s/mm2) and 0.731 (b = 0, 1,000 s/mm2). CONCLUSIONS: DWI could have potential value in preoperative predicting liver invasion by T3-staged GBC.

Venipuncture versus heel prick for blood glucose monitoring in neonates.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in the pain indicators and effectiveness between venipuncture (VP) and heel prick (HP) for blood glucose monitoring in term neonates (recently, venipuncture was shown superior for the Guthrie test). METHODS: 66 term neonates undergoing blood glucose monitoring underwent VP or HP. Primary outcome measures included the Neonatal Facial Scoring System (NFCS) score, duration of the first cry, total duration of cry and duration of procedure. Secondary outcome measured was the number of skin punctures needed to obtain blood. RESULTS: The NFCS score was not significantly different between the two groups and the duration of the procedure was significantly longer for the VP than the HP group (median 27 s vs. 7 s; p-value is less than 0.001). The differences between the two groups in the duration of the first cry, total duration of cry and number of skin punctures needed to obtain blood were not statistically significant, but these parameters displayed a trend, favouring the HP. CONCLUSION: The HP is still the preferred method of drawing blood in neonates for blood glucose monitoring, as only one drop of blood is required.

Cephalometric changes during headgear-reactivator treatment.

Sixty-six growing Class II, division 1 patients were treated with a headgear-reactivator combination. The appliance included a mandibular advancement mechanism, that was reactivated during treatment. Lateral roentgenograms in centric occlusion were taken at the beginning and end of the active treatment period. At the end of treatment the sagittal jaw relationship was significantly improved. However, considerable maxillary incisor retroclination and mandibular incisor proclination also occurred. No marked changes in the vertical skeletal situation could be demonstrated.