实用肝脏病杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (3): 446-449.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2026.03.032

• 肝脓肿 • 上一篇    下一篇

MRI联合扩散加权成像鉴别诊断不典型肝脓肿与肝内转移癌价值研究*

程琪, 耿承军, 金晓凤, 徐文韬, 王骁   

  1. 214044 江苏省无锡市 联勤保障部队第九○四医院放射科(程琪,耿承军,金晓凤);血液肿瘤科(王骁);苏州大学附属无锡第九人民医院放射科(徐文韬)
  • 收稿日期:2025-10-29 出版日期:2026-05-10 发布日期:2026-05-18
  • 作者简介:程琪,女,32岁,大学本科,技师。E-mail:18262277031@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    *江苏省自然科学基金资助项目(编号:BK20211131)

Differentiation diagnosis of atypical hepatic abscess and intrahepatic metastasis by MR with diffusion-weighted imaging

Cheng Qi, Geng Chengjun, Jin Xiaofeng, et al   

  1. Department of Radiology, 904th Hospital, Joint Logistics Support Force, Wuxi 214044, Jiangsu Province, China
  • Received:2025-10-29 Online:2026-05-10 Published:2026-05-18

摘要: 目的 总结MRI及其扩散加权成像(DWI)鉴别诊断不典型肝脓肿(AHA)与肝内转移癌(IMT)的应用价值。方法 2020年1月~2025年1月我院收治AHA患者30例和IMT患者50例,均常规行MRI动态增强扫描和获得DWI定量参数,分析两种病变的MRI表现差异。结果 AHA组病灶直径和多发病灶比例分别为(3.4±1.0)cm和26.7%,均显著小于或低于IMT病灶【分别为(4.4±1.3)cm和62.0%,P<0.05】,而边界清晰、T2WI病灶内部信号均匀、包膜样结构和病灶周围实质反应占比分别为76.7%、66.7%、46.7%和50.0%,均显著高于IMT病灶的42.0%、36.0%、18.0%和14.0%(P<0.05);AHA病灶增强扫描动脉期环形强化占比为40.0%,而IMT病灶动脉期不规则/结节样强化占比为72.0%;AHA病灶门脉期和延迟期均匀强化占比分别为36.7%和60.0%,均显著高于IMT病灶的16.0%和30.0%(P<0.05),IMT病灶中心坏死占比为58.0%; AHA病灶DWI序列平均表观弥散系数(ADCmean)和相对ADC(rADC)分别为(1.7±0.4)×10-3mm2/s和(0.7±0.2)×10-3mm2/s,均显著大于IMT病灶【分别为(1.0±0.3)×10-3mm2/s和(0.4±0.1)×10-3mm2/s,P<0.05】,而病灶-肝实质信号比和对比噪声比分别为(1.9±0.3)和(18.4±3.2),均显著大于IMT病灶【分别为(2.4±0.3)和(24.7±4.1),P<0.05】。结论 AHA与IMT在MRI表现上还是有很多各自不同的特点,如果再结合临床资料,应该可以帮助鉴别。

关键词: 不典型肝脓肿, 肝内转移癌, 磁共振成像, 扩散加权成像, 鉴别诊断

Abstract: Objective The aim of this study was to summarize imaging feature of atypical hepatic abscesses (AHA) and intrahepatic metastases (IMT) by MR and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Methods 30 patients with AHA and 50 patients with IMT were admitted to our hospital between January 2020 and January 2025, and all underwent conventional and enhanced MR scan with DWI quantitative parameters recorded. Results Diameter and multiple lesion percentage in AHA lesions were(3.4±1.0)cm and 26.7%, both much smaller or lower than [(4.4±1.3)cm and 62.0%, respectively, P<0.05], while percentages of distinct edge, intralesional homogeneous signal at T2WI, capsule-like structures and perilesional hepatic parenchymal reaction were 76.7%, 66.7%, 46.7% and 50.0%, all much higher than 42.0%, 36.0%, 18.0% and 14.0%(P<0.05) in IMT lesions; AHA lesion exhibited 40.0% of ring-like enhancement at arterial phase, while IMT showed irregular or nodular enhancement for 72.0%; AHA lesions were homogeneously enhanced in 36.7% and 60.0% at portal and delayed phases, both much higher than 16.0% and 30.0%(P<0.05) in IMT lesion, and IMT presented central necrosis in 58.0%; mean ADC (ADCmean) and relative ADC (rADC) at DWI sequence in AHA were(1.7±0.4)×10-3mm2/s and (0.7±0.2)×10-3mm2/s, both significantly greater than [(1.0±0.3)×10-3mm2/s and (0.4±0.1)×10-3mm2/s, respectively, P<0.05], while lesion-to-liver signal ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were (1.9±0.3) and (18.4±3.2), both significantly greater than [(2.4±0.3) and (24.7±4.1), respectively, P<0.05] in IMT lesions. Conclusion AHA and IMT exhibit significantly different MRI features, which might help differentiate diagnosis of the two different entities, especially based on clinical materials.

Key words: Atypical hepatic abscess, Intrahepatic metastasis, Magnetic resonance imaging, Diffusion-weighted imaging, Differentiation diagnosis