
==== Front
J Hepatocell Carcinoma
J Hepatocell Carcinoma
jhc
Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
2253-5969
Dove

462979
10.2147/JHC.S462979
Original Research
Exploring the MRI and Clinical Features of P53-Mutated Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Weng et al
Weng et al
Weng Jingfei 1 2 *
Xiao Yuyao 1 *
Liu Jing 3 *
Liu Xiaohua 4
He Yuqing 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5169-0417
Wu Fei 1
Ni Xiaoyan 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6293-9158
Yang Chun 1
1 Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
2 Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, People’s Republic of China
3 Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
4 Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Chun Yang; Xiaoyan Ni, Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 18702135336; +86 15201803582, Email dryangchun@hotmail.com; nixiaoyan1103@126.com
* These authors contributed equally to this work

29 8 2024
2024
11 16531674
09 3 2024
01 8 2024
© 2024 Weng et al.
2024
Weng et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
Purpose

To study the MRI features (based on LI-RADS) and clinical characteristics of P53-mutated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

Patients and Methods

This study enrolled 344 patients with histopathologically confirmed HCC (P53-mutated group [n = 196], non-P53-mutated group [n = 148]). We retrospectively evaluated the preoperative MRI features, clinical and pathologic features of the lesions and assigned each lesion according to the LI-RADS. MRI findings, clinical features, and pathologic findings were compared using the Student’s t test, χ2 test, and multivariable regression analysis.

Results

Most HCC patients were categorized as LR-5. On multivariate analysis, the Edmondson–Steiner grade (odds ratio, 2.280; 95% CI: 1.268, 4.101; p = 0.006) and rim enhancement (odds ratio, 2.517; 95% CI: 1.095, 5.784; p = 0.030) were found to be independent variables associated with P53-mutated HCC. In the group of HCC lesions with the largest tumor diameter (LTD) greater than or equal to 10mm and less than or equal to 20mm, enhancing capsule was an independent predictor of P53-mutated HCC (odds ratio, 6.200; 95% CI: 1.116, 34.449; p = 0.037). Among the HCC lesions (20 mm ˂ LTD ≤ 50 mm), corona enhancement (odds ratio, 2.102; 95% CI: 1.022, 4.322; p = 0.043) and nodule-in-nodule architecture (odds ratio, 2.157; 95% CI: 1.033, 4.504; p = 0.041) were found to be independent risk factors for P53 mutation. Among the HCC lesions (50 mm ˂ LTD ≤ 100 mm), diameter (odds ratio, 1.035; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.069; p = 0.044) and AFP ≥ 400 (ng/mL) (odds ratio, 3.336; 95% CI: 1.052, 10.577; p = 0.041) were found to be independent variables associated with P53-mutated HCC.

Conclusion

Poor differentiation and rim enhancement are potential predictive biomarkers for P53-mutated HCC, while HCCs of different diameters have different risk factors for predicting P53 mutations.

Keywords

liver neoplasms
magnetic resonance imaging
P53-mutated
Shanghai Municipal Health Commission Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 10.13039/501100003399 This work was supported by Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (grant number 202240152); Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (grant number 23Y11907400).
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

More than 90% of primary liver cancers are hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and are predisposed to occur in patients with underlying chronic liver disease.1 HCC has a high mortality rate, and the survival rate of patients with advanced HCC is very low.2 HCC has a poor prognosis mainly because it is prone to vascular infiltration, metastasis and recurrence.3 It is important for patients to be able to make preoperative predictions about the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and to choose appropriate treatment options. Therefore, additional data about the pathogenesis of HCC are needed to investigate new and more effective treatments to improve the survival of HCC patients.

P53 is an important tumor suppressor gene involved in the development of hepatocellular carcinoma, and it is closely related to cell cycle arrest, cellular regulation and cellular senescence.4 While the wild-type P53 gene is a tumor suppressor gene, mutant P53 has oncogenic activity, this protein not only binds to wild-type P53 to form a complex and inhibit P53 gene function but also promotes abnormal cell proliferation and participates in tumor formation.5 The most commonly mutated genes in hepatocellular carcinoma are TERT (promoter), TP53, CTNNB1, AXIN1, ARID1A, and ARID2, whereas the chance of mutation occurring in other genes is less than 10%.6 Enrichment of TP53 inactivating mutations promotes the onset of HCC proliferation, including in clinically aggressive tumors with poor differentiation and frequent vascular invasion. The mutation rate of the P53 gene in HCC patients is 31.5%, and the expression up-regulation is 35.0%. Moreover, P53 expression can lead to a poor prognosis in HCC patients.7

Small HCCs with a diameter of ≤2 cm have low invasiveness, but their incidence is increasing annually, and the optimal treatment options are uncertain. Small-diameter (less than 2 cm) HCCs have high resection rates and low recurrence rates.8 Liver transplantation is the best therapeutic option for patients with unresectable HCC. The Milan criterion for liver transplantation is a single nodule ≤5 cm in length.9 Mazzaferro et al10 reported that among patients who had undergone liver transplantation for HCC, the 4-year recurrence-free survival rate was 83%, and the ability of patients to choose the right treatment helped improve their survival. Liver transplantation also has some limitations in that it mainly selects HCC that meets the Milan criteria, and overall survival remains low for out-of-criteria HCC and patients with high-risk HCC features (with microvascular invasion and poorly differentiated tumors).11

P53-mutated HCC is a major subtype of HCC, and the ability to identify P53-mutated HCC in a noninvasive manner can help patients develop a personalized treatment plan. Several studies have shown that P53-mutated HCC is associated with dilated vasculature in the arterial phase and a decreased relative enhancement ratio in the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI;12 however, imaging manifestations in the ancillary features of HCC (mosaic architecture, nodule-in-nodule architecture, etc.) have not been investigated, and their diameters have not been further categorized. Therefore, we investigated the imaging features of HCCs expressing P53 mutations on contrast-enhanced MR and explored whether there were differences in the imaging features of P53-mutated HCCs with different diameters.

Materials and Methods

Patient Selection

The study was approved by the institutional review board committees of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University (approval number: B2021–113R), and patient informed consent was waived. Our study was retrospective and therefore consent was waived. Our study covers patient data confidentiality and compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Between January 2020 and December 2020, a total of 910 consecutive patients were confirmed to have HCC by postoperative pathology with P53 immunohistochemistry and no extrahepatic metastases on preoperative examination. The inclusion criteria were (a) primary liver lesion without any previous treatment; (b) MRI examination within 30 days before the operation, for which the MRI scan was clear and suitable for diagnosis; (c) a single mass; and (d) a maximum lesion diameter between 10 mm and 100 mm. Finally, 566 patients were excluded for the following reasons: lack of clinical data (n = 15); history of previous treatment, including surgery and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) therapy (n = 242); lack of MRI data available 1 month before the procedure or poor MRI images, which made it difficult to make a diagnosis (n = 32); two or more HCC lesions in the same liver (n = 178); and lesions with a maximum diameter less than 10 mm or more than 100 mm (n = 99), because the imaging signs of larger tumors are complex in presentation and affect the judgement of the results. Finally, 344 patients with HCC were enrolled in this study (Figure 1). Figure 1 Patient selection process and exclusion criteria.

Abbreviations: HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; LTD, the largest tumor diameter; P53(+), P53-mutated; P53(-), non-P53-mutated.

Histologic Diagnosis and Immunohistochemistry

Pathologic analyses, including immunohistochemistry, revealed the following features: tumor differentiation according to the Edmondson–Steiner grade and the presence of microvascular or macrovascular invasion. Immunohistochemistry for P53 was performed for all 344 patients with HCC, and then the patients were classified into P53-mutated HCC and non-P53-mutated HCC groups. P53 expression in tumor tissue was scored according to the percentage of cells exhibiting positive nuclear staining; P53 expression was defined as positive when 10% or more of the cells exhibited nuclear staining.13

MRI Technique

All patients were examined Gd-DTPA enhanced liver MRI. Patients were scanned using the following nine MRI scanners: a Magnetom Aera 1.5T imager (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) for 55 patients; a 3.0T UIHMR770 scanner (United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, China) for 102 patients; a Magnetom Avanto 1.5T imager (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) for 44 patients; a 1.5T UIHMR560 scanner (United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, China) for 76 patients; and a Magnetom Verio 3.0T MRI System (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) for 14 patients; a Prisma 3.0T MRI System (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) was used for 26 patients, and Ingenia CX3.0 MRI System (Philips Medical Systems, Best, the Netherlands) for 27 patients. Gd-DTPA was intravenously administered at a rate of 2 mL/s for a total dose of 0.1 mmol/kg. The routine MR imaging protocol included transverse T2-weighted breath-hold fat-suppressed fast spin‒echo sequence, T1-weighted breath-hold in-phase and opposed-phase gradient echo sequence, and free-breath diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with a transverse single-shot spin‒echo planar sequence (b value, 0, 50, and 500 s/mm2). The contrast-enhanced MR imaging protocol included pre- and postcontrast three-dimensional T1-weighted imaging in the arterial phase (20–30 s), portal venous phase (70–90 s) and delayed phase (160–180 s).

Imaging Analyses

Images were analysed by two radiologists (** and ** with 9 and 16 years of abdominal imaging analysis experience, respectively) retrospectively. If there was an inconsistency between the two radiologists, a consensus was reached through discussion. The following findings were assessed Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI (Figures 2–4): (a) enhancement patterns (hypoenhanced-isoenhanced, nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement and rim enhancement); (b) washout patterns (no washout, nonperipheral washout, peripheral washout); (c) dilated vasculature, defined as thick branching vessels of similar contrast to arteries with a maximum diameter >2 mm; (d) delayed central enhancement, defined as progressive enhancement in the central region of the lesion in the delayed phase; (e) enhancing capsule, defined as an enhancing rim of tissue that appears during the portal venous and delayed phases; (f) corona enhancement, defined as periobservation enhancement in the late arterial or early portal venous phase; (g) mosaic architecture, defined as randomly distributed internal nodules or compartments on T2WI images; and (h) nodule-in-nodule architecture, defined as a mass with a smaller internal nodule within a larger nodule accompanied by marked enhancement in the arterial phase with washout in the portal phase. (i) A tumor in the vein was defined as an occluded vein adjacent to the intrahepatic mass. In addition, intratumoral hemorrhage, fat deposition, restriction diffusion status (yes or not), and hepatic capsule retraction were also assessed. Figure 2 Images in a 40-year-old man with P53-mutated HCC; the serum level of AFP was 4.2 ng/mL. (A) T1-weighted image shows a 27mm hypointense mass. (B) T2-weighted image shows a hyperintense mass. (C) Axial arterial phase image shows a rim enhancement mass. (D) Delayed phase image shows delayed enhancement in the center of the mass.

Figure 3 Images in a 38-year-old man with P53-mutated HCC; the serum level of AFP was 3.6 ng/mL. (A) T1-weighted image shows a 17mm hypointense mass. (B) T2-weighted image shows a hyperintense mass. (C) Axial arterial phase image shows a hypervascular mass. (D) Delayed phase image shows a mass with enhancing capsule.

Figure 4 Images in a 50-year-old man with P53-mutated HCC; the serum level of AFP was 11.4 ng/mL. (A) T1-weighted image shows a 42mm hypointense mass. (B) T2-weighted image shows a hyperintense mass. (C) Axial arterial phase image shows a mass with nodule-in-nodule architecture and irregular peritumoral enhancement. (D) Delayed phase image shows nodule-in-nodule architecture washout and peritumoral slight hypointensity.

Clinical Data

Clinical information such as age, sex, background liver characteristics, liver functional parameters, and serum tumor marker levels of AFP, CA19–9, and CEA was collected.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0. Inter-reader agreement was expressed by Cohen’s kappa coefficient. A kappa statistic of 0.81–1.0 was considered very good, 0.61–0.80 was considered good agreement, 0.41–0.60 was considered moderate agreement, 0.21–0.40 was considered fair agreement, and 0–0.20 was considered poor agreement. Continuous variables were compared using Student’s t test, and categorical variables were compared among different groups using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test. Parameters were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine whether they were independent risk factors for P53-mutated HCC. Univariate analyses were performed first, and only those parameters found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) were used in stepwise multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Patient Clinical

In our study, a total of 344 patients were included, 196 cases (57.0%) were P53-mutated HCC and 148 cases (43.0%) were non-P53-mutated HCC, of which 54 cases had HCC with a maximum diameter of 10 mm to 20 mm, 33 cases (61.1%) were P53 mutated and 21 cases (38.9%) were non-mutated; 189 cases had HCC with a maximum diameter of 20 mm to 50 mm, 98 cases (51.8%) were P53 mutated and 91 cases (48.1%) were non-mutated; and 101 cases had HCC with a maximum diameter of 50 mm to 100 mm, 65 cases (64.4%) were P53 mutated and 36 cases (35.6%) were non-mutated.

There were significant differences in the largest tumor diameter, AFP level, Edmondson–Steiner grade and microvascular invasion between P53-mutated HCC patients and non-P53-mutated HCC patients (p = 0.018, p = 0.012, p < 0.001 and p = 0.034, respectively; Table 1). In patients with HCC with a diameter greater than or equal to 10mm and less than or equal to 20 mm, there were no significant differences in age, sex, diameter, etiology, liver function parameters, AFP, CA 19–9, CEA levels, Edmondson–Steiner grade, or microvascular invasion (p > 0.05; Table 2). In patients with HCC with a diameter greater than 20 mm and less than or equal to 50 mm, there were significant differences in the Edmondson–Steiner grade between P53-mutated HCC and non-P53-mutated HCC (p = 0.023; Table 3). Among patients with HCC with a diameter greater than 50 mm and less than or equal to 100 mm, P53-mutated HCC had greater maximum diameters and serum AFP levels than non-P53-mutated HCC (p = 0.011 and p = 0.008, respectively; Table 4).Table 1 Clinical Characteristics HCC According to P53 (10mm ≤ LTD ≤ 100mm)

Clinical parameters	Non-P53-mutated (n = 148)	P53-mutated (n = 196)	p value	
Age (years)a	59.26±11.68	57.27±11.22	0.109	
Sex (male:female)	116:32	163:33	0.262	
Largest diameter (mm)a	39.09±18.39	44.52±23.76	0.018	
Etiology†			0.939	
 Hepatitis A virus	1(0.7)	1(0.5)		
 Hepatitis B virus	107(72.3)	146(74.5)		
 Hepatitis C virus	1(0.7)	2(1.0)		
 None or other	39(26.4)	47(24.0)		
Liver functional parameters				
 Total bilirubin > 20 (μmol/L)	25(16.9)	29(14.8)	0.597	
 Direct bilirubin > 7 (μmol/L)	13(8.8)	17(8.7)	0.971	
 Alanine aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)	33(22.3)	42(21.4)	0.847	
 Aspartate aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)	25(16.9)	37(18.9)	0.635	
 γ-Glutamyltranspeptidase > 60 (IU/L)	44(29.7)	52(26.5)	0.513	
Alpha-fetoprotein			0.012	
 Alpha-fetoprotein < 20(ng/ml)	82(55.4)	89(45.6)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/ml)	43(29. 1)	49(25. 1)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/ml)	23(15.5)	57(29.2)		
Cancer antigen 19-9 > 37 (U/ml)	21(15.2)	20(10.9)	0.247	
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/ml)	11(7.4)	11(5.6)	0.495	
Edmondson-Steiner grade (II:III)	126:22	135:61	<0.001	
Microvascular invasion	44(29.7)	80(40.8)	0.034	
Notes: Data are numbers of patients (percentage), unless otherwise specified. aData are means ± standard deviations. †Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. The ages were compared using an independent sample t test. Excepted where indicated, data were compared using the χ2 test.

Table 2 Clinical Characteristics HCC According to P53 (10mm ≤LTD ≤ 20mm)

Clinical parameters	Non-P53-mutated (n = 21)	P53-mutated (n = 33)	p value	
Age (years)a	57.62±11.50	54. 12±8.88	0.215	
Sex (male:female)	14:7	27:6	0.204	
Largest diameter (mm)a	16.57±2.94	16. 15±2.76	0.598	
Etiology†			0.557	
 Hepatitis B virus	16(76.2)	28(84.8)		
 Hepatitis C virus	1(4.8)	0(0)		
 None or other	4(19.0)	5(15.2)		
Liver functional parameters				
 Total bilirubin > 20 (μmol/L)†	2(9.5)	5(15.2)	0.693	
 Direct bilirubin > 7 (μmol/L)†	1(4.8)	3(9. 1)	1.000	
 Alanine aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)†	2(9.5)	5(15.2)	0.693	
 Aspartate aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)†	2(9.5)	1(3.0)	0.553	
 γ-Glutamyltranspeptidase > 60 (IU/L)†	2(9.5)	3(9. 1)	1.000	
Alpha-fetoprotein†			0.598	
 Alpha-fetoprotein < 20(ng/ml)	12(57. 1)	14(42.4)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/ml)	6(28.6)	14(42.4)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/ml)	3(14.3)	5(15.2)		
Cancer antigen 19-9 > 37 (U/ml)†	3(14.3)	2(6. 1)	0.366	
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/ml)†	1(4.8)	2(6. 1)	1.000	
Edmondson-Steiner grade (II:III)†	20:1	24:9	0.69	
Microvascular invasion†	0(0)	6(18.4)	0.071	
Notes: Data are numbers of patients (percentage), unless otherwise specified. aData are means ± standard deviations. † Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. The ages were compared using an independent sample t test. Excepted where indicated, data were compared using the χ2 test.

Table 3 Clinical Characteristics HCC According to P53 (20mm ˂ LTD ≤ 50mm)

Clinical parameters	Non-P53-mutated
(n =91)	P53-mutated
(n =98)	p value	
Age (years)a	58.67±11.71	58.31±11.85	0.832	
Sex (male:female)	74:17	80:18	0.956	
Largest diameter (mm)a	33.91±8.09	35.19±8.85	0.301	
Etiology†			0.432	
 Hepatitis A virus	1(1.1)	1(1)		
 Hepatitis B virus	65(71.4)	75(76.5)		
 Hepatitis C virus	0(0)	2(2.0)		
  None or other	25(27.5)	20(20.4)		
Liver functional parameters				
 Total bilirubin > 20 (μmol/L)	16(17.6)	16(16.3)	0.818	
 Direct bilirubin > 7 (μmol/L)	8(8.8)	9(9.2)	0.925	
 Alanine aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)	21(23.1)	16(16.3)	0.243	
 Aspartate aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)	10(11.0)	15(15.3)	0.381	
 γ-Glutamyltranspeptidase > 60 (IU/L)	25(27.5)	16(16.3)	0.063	
Alpha-fetoprotein			0.378	
 Alpha-fetoprotein< 20(ng/ml)	52(57.1)	50(51.5)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/ml)	24(26.4)	23(23.7)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/ml)	15(16.5)	24(24.7)		
Cancer antigen 19-9 > 37 (U/ml)	10(11.0)	11(11.2)	0.959	
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/ml)	6(6.6)	6(6.1)	0.894	
Edmonson-Steiner grade (II:III)	76:15	68:30	0.023	
Microvascular invasion	26(28.6)	33(33.7)	0.449	
Notes: Data are numbers of patients (percentage), unless otherwise specified. aData are means ± standard deviations. †Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. The ages were compared using an independent sample t test. Excepted where indicated, data were compared using the χ2 test.

Table 4 Clinical Characteristics HCC According to P53 (50mm ˂ LTD ≤ 100mm)

Clinical Parameters	Non-P53-Mutated (n = 36)	P53-Mutated (n = 65)	p value	
Age (years)a	61.72±11.65	57.29±11.16	0.063	
Sex (male:female)	28:8	56:9	0.281	
Largest diameter (mm)a	65.33±12.85	72.98±15.03	0.011	
Etiology			0.530	
 Hepatitis B virus	26(72.2)	43(66.2)		
 None or other	10(27.8)	22(33.8)		
Liver functional parameters				
 Total bilirubin > 20 (μmol/L)	7(19.4)	8(12.3)	0.334	
 Direct bilirubin > 7(μmol/L)†	4(11.1)	5(7.7)	0.718	
 Alanine aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)	10(27.8)	21(32.3)	0.636	
 Aspartate aminotransferase > 40 (IU/L)	13(36.1)	21(32.3)	0.698	
 γ-Glutamyltranspeptidase > 60 (IU/L)	17(47.2)	33(50.8)	0.733	
Alpha-fetoprotein			0.008	
 Alpha-fetoprotein< 20(ng/mL)	18(50.0)	25(38.5)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/ml)	13(36. 1)	12(18.5)		
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/ml)	5(13.9)	28(43. 1)		
Cancer antigen 19-9 > 37 (U/ml)	8(22.2)	7(10.8)	0. 121	
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/ml)†	4(11. 1)	3(4.6)	0.244	
Edmondson-Steiner grade (II:III)	30:6	43:22	0.065	
Microvascular invasion	18(50.0)	41(63. 1)	0.202	
Notes: Data are numbers of patients (percentage), unless otherwise specified. aData are means ± standard deviations. † Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. The ages were compared using an independent sample t test. Excepted where indicated, data were compared using the χ2 test.

Imaging Features

The interobserver agreement for MRI features was good, with a kappa coefficient ranging from 0.704 to 0.958 (Table 5).Table 5 Interobserver Agreement of MRI Imaging Features

MRI Features	Kappa value	
Enhancement at AP	0.732	
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	0.958	
Washout at portal venous phase	0.806	
Delayed central enhancement	0.704	
Enhancing capsule	0.917	
Corona enhancement	0.852	
Mosaic architecture	0.825	
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	0.767	
Tumor in vein	0.714	
LI-RADS	0.762	
Abbreviations: AP, arterial phase; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; LI-RADS, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.

There were significant differences in hepatic capsule retraction and corona enhancement between P53-mutated HCC patients and non-P53-mutated HCC patients (p = 0.047 and p = 0.021, respectively; Table 6). Among the groups with a diameter greater than or equal to 10mm and less than or equal to 20 mm, the P53-mutated group was more likely to have an enhancing capsule than the non-mutated group (p = 0.045), and hemorrhage, fat, rim enhancement, mosaic architecture, nodule-in-nodule architecture, and LI-M were more likely to occur in the P53-mutated group, however, there was no statistically significant difference in the p value (p ˃ 0.05; Table 7). In the 20 mm to 50 mm diameter group, the P53-mutated group had a higher incidence of corona enhancement and nodule-in-nodule architecture (p = 0.023 and p = 0.029; Table 8). In the groups with a diameter greater than 50 mm and less than or equal to 100 mm, hepatic capsule retraction, hemorrhage, fat, rim enhancement, dilated vasculature, delayed central enhancement, enhancing capsule, corona enhancement, and LI-M were more frequently observed in the P53-mutated group than in the non-P53-mutated group, although the p value did not reach statistical significance (p ˃ 0.05; Table 9).Table 6 Comparison of Qualitative Data Obtained on MRI Features Stratified by P53 Status (10mm ≤ LTD ≤ 100mm)

MRI Features	Non-P53-Mutated (n =148)	P53-Mutated (n =196)	p value	
Hypointense at T1-weighted imaging	139(93.9)	190(96.9)	0.174	
Mild-moderate hyperintensity at T2-weighted imaging†	145(98.0)	191(97.4)	1.000	
Hepatic capsule retraction	4(2.7)	15(7.7)	0.047	
Hemorrhage	34(23.0)	54(27.6)	0.335	
Fat deposition	48(32.4)	73(37.2)	0.355	
Diffusion restriction	141(95.3)	186(94.9)	0.875	
Enhancement at AP†			0.116	
 Nonrim enhancement	135(91.2)	165(84.2)		
 Rim enhancement	9(6.1)	25(12.8)		
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	4(2.7)	6(3.1)		
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	88(59.5)	112(57.1)	0.666	
Washout at portal venous phase			0.962	
 Nonperipheral washout	117(79.1)	153(78.1)		
 Peripheral washout	6(4.1)	9(4.6)		
 No washout	25(16.9)	34(17.3)		
Delayed central enhancement	14(9.5)	13(6.6)	0.334	
Enhancing capsule	130(87.8)	181(92.3)	0.160	
Corona enhancement	31(20.9)	63(32. 1)	0.021	
Mosaic architecture	89(60. 1)	129(65.8)	0.279	
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	26(17.6)	44(22.4)	0.266	
Tumor in vein	5(3.4)	13(6.6)	0.180	
LI-RADS†			0.204	
 LR-3	5(3.4)	2(1.0)		
 LR-4	6(4. 1)	11(5.6)		
 LR-5	111(75.0)	133(67.9)		
 LR-M	21(14.2)	37(18.9)		
 LR-TIV	5(3.4)	13(6.6)		
Notes: The data are presented as the number (%) of patients. †Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. LR-3 intermediate probability for malignancy, LR-4 probably HCC, LR-5 definitely HCC, LR-M definitely or probably malignant, not HCC specific, LR-TIV tumor in vein.

Abbreviations: AP, arterial phase; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; LI-RADS, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Table 7 Comparison of Qualitative Data Obtained on MRI Features Stratified by P53 Status (10mm ≤ LTD ≤ 20mm)

MRI Features	Non-P53-Mutated (n =21)	P53-Mutated (n =33)	p value	
Hypointense at T1-weighted imaging†	18(85.7)	33(100.0)	0.054	
Mild-moderate hyperintensity at T2-weighted imaging	21(100.0)	33(100.0)	NA	
Hepatic capsule retraction†	0(0)	1(3.0)	1.000	
Hemorrhage†	1(4.8)	3(9.1)	1.000	
Fat deposition	6(28.6)	9(27.3)	0.917	
Diffusion restriction†	19(90.5)	32(97.0)	0.553	
Enhancement at AP†			0.298	
 Nonrim enhancement	18(85.7)	28(84.8)		
 Rim enhancement	0(0)	3(9.1)		
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	3(14.3)	2(6.1)		
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI†	4(19.0)	6(18.2)	1.000	
Washout at portal venous phase†			0.317	
 Nonperipheral washout	14(66.7)	25(33.3)		
 Peripheral washout	0(0)	2(6.1)		
 No washout	7(33.3)	6(18.2)		
Delayed central enhancement†	1(4.8)	0(0)	0.389	
Enhancing capsule†	15(71.4)	31(93.9)	0.045	
Corona enhancement†	1(4.8)	1(3.0)	1.000	
Mosaic architecture†	3(14.3)	6(18.2)	1.000	
Nodule-in-nodule architecture†	4(19.0)	7(21.2)	1.000	
Tumor in vein	0(0)	0(0)	NA	
LI-RADS†			0.190	
 LR-3	5(23.8)	2(6.0)		
 LR-4	1(4.8)	4(12. 1)		
 LR-5	14(66.7)	22(66.7)		
 LR-M	1(4.8)	5(15.2)		
Notes: The data are presented as the number (%) of patients. †Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. LR-3 intermediate probability for malignancy, LR-4 probably HCC, LR-5 definitely HCC, LR-M definitely or probably malignant, not HCC specific, LR-TIV tumor in vein, NA, not available.

Abbreviations: AP, arterial phase; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; LI-RADS, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Table 8 Comparison of Qualitative Data Obtained on MRI Features Stratified by P53 Status (20mm ˂ LTD ≤ 50mm)

MRI Features	Non-P53-Mutated (n = 91)	P53-Mutated (n = 98)	p value	
Hypointense at T1-weighted imaging	87(95.6)	92(93.9)	0.749	
Mild-moderate hyperintensity at T2-weighted imaging†	88(96.7)	95(96.9)	1.000	
Hepatic capsule retraction†	3(3.3)	8(8.2)	0.216	
Hemorrhage	18(19.8)	16(16.3)	0.537	
Fat deposition	26(28.6)	34(34.7)	0.366	
Diffusion restriction†	88(96.7)	91(92.9)	0.334	
Enhancement at AP†			0.060	
 Nonrim enhancement	84(92.3)	80(81.6)		
 Rim enhancement	7(7.7)	16(16.3)		
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	0(0)	2(2.0)		
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	58(63.7)	52(53.1)	0.137	
Washout at portal venous phase†			0.888	
 Nonperipheral washout	72(79.1)	76(77.6)		
 Peripheral washout	4(4.4)	6(6.1)		
 No washout	15(16.5)	16(16.3)		
Delayed central enhancement	10(11.0)	7(7.1)	0.356	
Enhancing capsule	81(89.0)	88(89.8)	0.861	
Corona enhancement	15(16.5)	30(30.6)	0.023	
Mosaic architecture	51(56.0)	62(63.3)	0.312	
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	14(15.4)	28(28.6)	0.029	
Tumor in vein†	1(1. 1)	5(5. 1)	0.213	
LI-RADS†			0.223	
 LR-3	0(0)	0(0)		
 LR-4	4(4.4)	6(6. 1)		
 LR-5	71(78.0)	65(66.3)		
 LR-M	15(16.5)	22(22.4)		
 LR-TIV	1(1. 1)	5(5. 1)		
Notes: The data are presented as the number (%) of patients. †Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. LR-3 intermediate probability for malignancy, LR-4 probably HCC, LR-5 definitely HCC, LR-M definitely or probably malignant, not HCC specific, LR-TIV tumor in vein.

Abbreviations: AP, arterial phase; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; LI-RADS, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Table 9 Comparison of Qualitative Data Obtained on MRI Features Stratified by P53 Status (50mm ˂ LTD ≤ 100mm)

MRI features	Non-P53-mutated
(n = 36)	P53-mutated
(n = 65)	p value	
Hypointense at T1-weighted imaging†	34(94.4)	65(100.0)	0.125	
Mild-moderate at T2-weighted imaging†	36(100.0)	63(96.9)	0.537	
Hepatic capsule retraction†	1(2.8)	6(9.2)	0.416	
Hemorrhage	15(41.7)	35(53.8)	0.241	
Fat deposition	16(44.4)	30(46.2)	0.869	
diffusion restriction†	34(94.4)	63(96.9)	0.615	
Enhancement at AP†			0.869	
 Nonrim enhancement	33(91.7)	57(87.7)		
 rim enhancement	2(5.6)	6(9.2)		
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	1(2.8)	2(3.1)		
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	26(72.2)	54(83.1)	0.198	
Washout at portal venous phase†			0.202	
 Nonperipheral washout	31(86.1)	52(80.0)		
 peripheral washout	2(5.6)	1(1.5)		
 No washout	3(8.3)	12(18.5)		
Delayed central enhancement†	3(8.3)	6(9.2)	1.000	
Enhancing capsule†	34(94.4)	62(95.4)	1.000	
Corona enhancement	15(41.7)	32(49.2)	0.465	
Mosaic architecture†	35(97.2)	61(93.8)	0.653	
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	8(22.2)	9(13.8)	0.281	
Tumor in vein†	4(11.1)	8(12.3)	1.000	
LI-RADS†			1.000	
 LR-3	0(0)	0(0)		
 LR-4	1(2.8)	1(1.5)		
 LR-5	26(72.2)	46(70.8)		
 LR-M	5(13.9)	10(15.4)		
 LR-TIV	4(11.1)	8(12.3)		
Notes: The data are presented as the number (%) of patients. †Data were compared using the Fisher’s exact test. LR-3 intermediate probability for malignancy, LR-4 probably HCC, LR-5 definitely HCC, LR-M definitely or probably malignant, not HCC specific, LR-TIV tumor in vein.

Abbreviations: AP, arterial phase; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; LI-RADS, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Univariate and Multivariate Analyses

Univariate logistic regression analysis identified six risk factors that were significantly related to P53-mutated HCC, namely, largest tumor diameter, AFP level, the Edmondson–Steiner grade, microvascular invasion, rim enhancement, and corona enhancement. These parameters were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. Edmondson–Steiner grade (odds ratio, 2.280; 95% CI: 1.268, 4.101; p = 0.006) and rim enhancement (odds ratio, 2.517; 95% CI: 1.095, 5.784; p = 0.030) were found to be independent variables associated with P53-mutated HCC (Table 10). When the maximum diameter was greater than or equal to 10mm and less than or equal to 20 mm, univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that one risk factor was significantly associated with P53-mutated HCC, and enhancing capsule was an independent predictor of P53-mutated HCC (odds ratio, 6.200; 95% CI: 1.116, 34.449; p = 0.037; Table 11). When the maximum diameter was between 20 mm and 50 mm, and univariate analysis suggested that Edmondson–Steiner grade, corona enhancement, and nodule-in-nodule architecture were predictors of P53 mutation, and multivariate analysis suggested that corona enhancement (odds ratio, 2.102; 95% CI: 1.022, 4.322; p = 0.043) and nodule-in-nodule architecture (odds ratio, 2.157; 95% CI: 1.033, 4.504; p = 0.041) were independent risk factors for P53-mutated HCC (Table 12). When the maximum diameter was greater than 50 mm and less than or equal to 100 mm, in univariate analysis, the maximum diameter and AFP were associated with P53-mutated HCC, at multivariable regression analysis, increased diameter (odds ratio, 1.035; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.069; p = 0.044) and AFP ≥ 400 (ng/mL) (odds ratio, 3.336; 95% CI: 1.052, 10.577; p = 0.041) were independent variables associated with P53-mutated HCC (Table 13).Table 10 Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Risk Factors for the P53-Mutated HCC (10mm ≤ LTD ≤ 100mm)

Risk Factor	Univariate Analysis	Multivariate Analysis	
Odds Ratio (95% CI)	p value	Odds Ratio (95 CI)	p value	
Age (years)a	0.985(0.966–1.003)	0.110			
Sex (male:female)	0.734(0.427–1.261)	0.263			
Largest diameter (mm)a	1.012(1.002–1.022)	0.023	1.009(0.997–1.020)	0.151	
Alpha-fetoprotein					
 Alpha-fetoprotein< 20(ng/mL)*					
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/mL)	1.050(0.632–1.744)	0.851	0.823(0.478–1.416)	0.482	
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/mL)	2.283(1.292–4.036)	0.004	1.583(0.853–2.937)	0.146	
Cancer antigen 19–9 > 37 (U/mL)	0.679(0.352–1.310)	0.249			
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/mL)	0.741(0.312–1.758)	0.496			
Edmondson–Steiner grade (II:III)	2.588(1.501–4.461)	<0.001	2.280(1.268–4.101)	0.006	
Microvascular invasion	1.630(1.036–2.565)	0.035	1.062(0.630–1.790)	0.821	
Hepatic capsule retraction	2.983(0.969–9.184)	0.057			
Hemorrhage	1.275(0.777-2.091)	0.336			
Fat deposition	1.236(0.789-1.939)	0.355			
Enhancement at AP					
 Nonrim enhancement*					
 rim enhancement	2.273(1.026-5.033)	0.043	2.517(1.095-5.784)	0.030	
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	1.227(0.339-4.438)	0.755	1.306(0.339-5.023)	0.698	
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	0.909(0.589-1.402)	0.666			
Washout at portal venous phase					
 Nonperipheral washout*					
 peripheral washout	1. 147(0.397-3.313)	0.800			
 No washout	1.040(0.588-1.838)	0.893			
Delayed central enhancement	0.680(0.309-1.494)	0.337			
Enhancing capsule	1.671(0.812-3.437)	0.163			
Corona enhancement	1.788(1.088-2.938)	0.022	1.262(0.724-2. 199)	0.411	
Mosaic architecture	1.276(0.820-1.986)	0.279			
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	1.358(0.791-2.331)	0.267			
Tumor in vein	2.032(0.708-5.831)	0.188			
LI-RADS					
 LR-3*					
 LR-4	4.583(0.673-31. 198)	0.120			
 LR-5	2.995(0.570-15.740)	0.195			
 LR-M	4.405(0.785-24. 106)	0.092			
 LR-TIV	6.500(0.937-45. 106)	0.058			
Notes: aData are the means ± standard deviations. *Data were used as the reference variable.

Table 11 Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Risk Factors for the P53-Mutated HCC (10mm ≤ LTD ≤ 20mm)

Risk Factor	Univariate Analysis	Multivariate Analysis	
Odds Ratio (95% CI)	p value	Odds Ratio (95% CI)	p value	
Age (years)a	0.963(0.908–1.022)	0.214			
Sex (male:female)	0.444(0.125–1.578)	0.210			
Largest diameter (mm)	0.947(0.776–1.155)	0.590			
Alpha-fetoprotein					
 Alpha-fetoprotein< 20(ng/mL)*					
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/mL)	2.000(0.585–6.832)	0.269			
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/mL)	1.429(0.281–7.261)	0.667			
Cancer antigen 19–9 > 37 (U/mL)	0.387(0.059–2.540)	0.323			
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/mL)	1.290(0.110–15.185)	0.839			
Edmondson–Steiner grade (II:III)	7.500(0.874–64.355)	0.066			
Microvascular invasion	NA	NA			
Hepatic capsule retraction	NA	NA			
Hemorrhage	2.000(0.194-20.614)	0.560			
Fat deposition	0.938(0.277-3. 169)	0.917			
Enhancement at AP					
 Nonrim enhancement*					
 rim enhancement	NA	NA			
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	0.429(0.065-2.822)	0.378			
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	0.944(0.232-3.842)	0.936			
Washout at portal venous phase					
 Nonperipheral washout*					
 peripheral washout	NA	NA			
 No washout	0.480(0.135-1.712)	0.258			
Delayed central enhancement	NA	NA			
Enhancing capsule	6.200(1.116-34.449)	0.037	6.200(1.116-34.449)	0.037	
Corona enhancement	0.625(0.037-10.565)	0.625			
Mosaic architecture	1.333(0.295-6.028)	0.709			
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	1. 144(0.290-4.513)	0.847			
Tumor in vein	NA	NA			
LI-RADS					
 LR-3*					
 LR-4	10.000(0.648-154.397)	0.099			
 LR-5	3.929(0.668-23.097)	0.130			
 LR-M	12.500(0.839-186.299)	0.067			
Notes: aData are the means ± standard deviations. *Data were used as the reference variable. NA, not available.

Table 12 Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Risk Factors for the P53-Mutated HCC (20mm ˂ LTD ≤ 50mm)

Risk factor	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis	
Odds ratio (95% CI)	p value	Odds ratio (95% CI)	p value	
Age (years)a	0.997 (0.973-1.022)	0.831			
Sex (male:female)	0.979(0.470-2.041)	0.956			
Largest diameter (mm)	1.018(0.984-1.053)	0.299			
Alpha-fetoprotein					
 Alpha-fetoprotein< 20(ng/ml)*					
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/ml)	0.997(0.499-1.989)	0.992			
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/ml)	1.664(0.784-3.533)	0.185			
Cancer antigen 19-9 > 37 (U/ml)	1.024(0.413-2.540)	0.959			
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/ml)	0.924(0.287-2.975)	0.894			
Edmonson-Steiner grade (II:III)	2.235(1.109-4.505)	0.024	1.949(0.947-4.011)	0.070	
Microvascular invasion	1.269(0.684-2.356)	0.450			
Hepatic capsule retraction	2.607(0.670-10.149)	0.167			
Hemorrhage	0.791(0.376-1.665)	0.537			
Fat deposition	1.328(0.717-2.460)	0.367			
Enhancement at AP					
 Nonrim enhancement*					
 rim enhancement	NA	NA			
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	0.429(0.065-2.822)	0.378			
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	0.643(0.359-1.152)	0.138			
Washout at portal venous phase					
 Nonperipheral washout*					
 peripheral washout	1.421(0.385-5.243)	0.598			
 No washout	1.011(0.466-2.193)	0.979			
Delayed central enhancement	0.623(0.227-1.713)	0.359			
Enhancing capsule	1.086(0.430-2.745)	0.861			
Corona enhancement	2.235(1.109-4.505)	0.024	2.102(1.022-4.322)	0.043	
Mosaic architecture	1.351(0.754-2.420)	0.312			
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	2.200(1.072-4.513)	0.032	2.157(1.033-4.504)	0.041	
Tumor in vein	4.839(0.554-42.231)	0.154			
LI-RADS					
 LR-4*					
 LR-5	0.610(0.165-2.260)	0.460			
 LR-M	0.978(0.235-4.066)	0.975			
 LR-TIV	3.333(0.276-40.287)	0.344			

Table 13 Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Risk Factors for the P53-Mutated HCC (50mm ˂ LTD ≤ 100mm)

Risk Factor	Univariate Analysis	Multivariate Analysis	
Odds Ratio (95% CI)	p value	Odds Ratio (95% CI)	p value	
Age (years)a	0.965(0.929–1.002)	0.066			
Sex (male:female)	0.563(0.196–1.615)	0.285			
Largest diameter (mm)a	1.040(1.008–1.073)	0.014	1.035(1.001–1.069)	0.044	
Alpha-fetoprotein					
 Alpha-fetoprotein< 20(ng/mL)*					
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 20 and < 400 (ng/mL)	0.665(0.247–1.791)	0.419	0.618(0.223–1.717)	0.356	
 Alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 (ng/mL)	4.032(1.305–12.458)	0.015	3.336(1.052–10.577)	0.041	
Cancer antigen 19–9 > 37 (U/mL)	0.422(0.139–1.282)	0.128			
Carcinoembryonic antigen > 5 (ng/mL)	0.387(0.082–1.836)	0.232			
Edmondson–Steiner grade (II:III)	2.558(0.926–7.066)	0.070			
Microvascular invasion	1.708(0.749–3.898)	0.203			
Hepatic capsule retraction	3.559(0.411–30.799)	0.249			
Hemorrhage	1.633(0.717–3.718)	0.242			
Fat deposition	1.071(0.473-2.429)	0.869			
Enhancement at AP					
 Nonrim enhancement*					
 rim enhancement	1.737(0.331-9. 105)	0.514			
 Hypoenhanced-isoenhanced	1. 158(0.101-13.264)	0.906			
Dilated vasculature at AP dynamic MRI	1.888(0.712-5.010)	0.202			
Washout at portal venous phase					
 Nonperipheral washout*					
 peripheral washout	0.298(0.026-3.424)	0.331			
 No washout	2.385(0.624-9. 116)	0.204			
Delayed central enhancement	1. 119(0.262-4.768)	0.880			
Enhancing capsule	1.216(0.194-7.635)	0.835			
Corona enhancement	1.358(0.597-3.088)	0.466			
Mosaic architecture	0.436(0.047-4.054)	0.465			
Nodule-in-nodule architecture	0.563(0.196-1.615)	0.285			
Tumor in vein	1. 123(0.313-4.022)	0.859			
LI-RADS					
 LR-4*					
 LR-5	1.769(0.106-29.481)	0.691			
 LR-M	2.000(0.102-39.079)	0.648			
 LR-TIV	2.000(0.098-41.003)	0.653			
Notes: aData are the means ± standard deviations. *Data were used as the reference variable.

Discussion

To date, few studies have analysed the sensitivity or specificity of MRI features for diagnosing or predicting the clinical outcome of P53-mutated HCC. In our study, several of the imaging features were related to P53-mutated HCC; P53-mutated HCC was associated with poorer differentiation and was more likely to show peripheral rim-like enhancement on imaging. In patients with small HCC (10 mm ≤ LTD ≤ 20 mm), enhancing capsule was an independent predictor of P53-mutated HCC; in lesions with a diameter ranging from 20 mm to 50 mm, corona enhancement and nodule-in-nodule architecture were more likely to be observed in the images of P53-mutated HCC; and in patients with large HCC (50 mm ˂ LTD ≤ 100 mm), a higher serum AFP level and large tumors may indicate a higher risk of P53-mutated HCC, while MRI features showed little difference.

A recent study showed that HCC with peripheral rim-like enhancement is associated with poor differentiation, a high frequency of macrotrabecular-massive type, and greater susceptibility to microvascular invasion, and peripheral rim-like enhancement is accompanied by increased necrotic areas in the centre of the tumor and frequent expression of the hypoxia-related marker CAIX.14 Both oncogenes and hypoxia can induce damage to DNA and signal activation in p53.4 Based on the findings of previous studies, a high degree of rim enhancement suggests that the tumor is highly malignant and poorly differentiated, which increases the rate of early recurrence after curative resection of HCC, and substantial tumor necrosis leads to a poorer prognosis.15,16 All of these findings are related to the increased malignancy and excessive growth of tumors, and the acquisition of P53 mutants, a transcription factor, promotes metabolic reprogramming of tumors, causing survival and proliferation of tumor cells.17 In the present study, poor differentiation and arterial-phase ring enhancement on MRI images were risk factors for P53-mutated HCC, and the results were consistent with these findings.

From 1996 to 2007, the Japanese surveillance system showed a yearly increase in the incidence of small HCCs ≤2 cm,18 and the treatment modalities used were diverse; therefore, understanding the internal characteristics of small HCC can aid in the development of personalized management. In our study, enhancing capsule was a risk factor for P53-mutated HCC in patients with small HCC. Enhancing capsule of HCC in patients with chronic liver disease is more easily recognized in the late portal venous phase of gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI.19 The presence of an enhancing capsule in HCC is caused by slow flow within intracapsular vessels and retention of contrast media in prominent peritumoral sinusoidal spaces or fibrosis.20 Some scholars have shown that the fibrous capsule and the prominent blood sinus overlap, that some microvessels form within the fibrous capsule, that the fibrous capsule accompanies the growth of HCC and that angiogenesis occurs.21 Recent studies have reported that dilated vessels in a pattern of vessel-encapsulated tumor clusters, possibly corresponding to neovascularized arteries or dilated sinusoidal gaps, are frequently observed on dynamic CT in P53-mutated HCC,12 and enhancing capsule is a risk factor for the development of microvascular invasion in HCC.22 Our study demonstrated a close relationship between enhancing capsule and p53-mutated HCC.

Several scholars have studied the preoperative imaging features of solitary HCC (≤5 cm) to identify potential biomarkers that can be appropriately selected to expand the scope of surgical resection and reduce tumor recurrence.22 Corona enhancement is an important ancillary feature of malignancy in LI-RADS and is readily observed in the late arterial and early portal vein phases. The nodule-in-nodule architecture appears mainly because of the morphological proliferation of poorly differentiated cells in the inner nodes replacing the well-differentiated outer nodes. In our study, P53-mutated HCC lesions with diameters ranging from 20 mm to 50 mm exhibited these imaging features because P53 mutation induced these phenotypes. The internal lesions of HCC may accumulate fat,23 thus leading to T2 isointense or hyperintense nodules, whereas mutant p53 can promote lipid synthesis by altering the activity of various transcription factors or signalling molecules involved in lipid metabolism, such as p63, p73, Nrf2, and AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK).24–26 Neovascularization occurs mainly at the periphery of the tumor and is prone to peripheral corona enhancement, which correlates with corona enhancement due to the rapid decrease in central perfusion, which favours central tumor necrosis and may result in the formation of nodule-in-nodule architecture.27 Our study identified both nodule-in-nodule architecture and corona enhancement as risk factors for P53-mutated HCC.

In this study, larger HCC (50 mm ˂ LTD ≤ 100 mm) had diverse imaging features, while tumor diameter and AFP level were risk factors for P53-mutated HCC. Rapidly growing HCC usually exhibits areas of necrosis due to hypoxia;26 thus, larger tumors are prone to cystic degeneration and necrosis, and their imaging features can be affected. Liu et al28,29 suggesting that increased tumor aggressiveness and infiltrative growth in HCC are associated with larger tumor sizes. P53 is a tumor suppressor gene, but mutant p53 proteins not only lose their tumor suppressor function but also often promote tumorigenesis through various pathways. Larger tumor diameters and AFP levels also negatively affect the survival of HCC patients.30 AFP can be routinely monitored in patients undergoing HCC surveillance because it is an easily available biomarker for HCC. Elevated serum AFP levels indicate a poor prognosis in patients with HCC.31 P53 mutations promote hepatocellular carcinoma cell proliferation, and AFP is activated during liver regeneration and hepatocarcinogenesis.32 Therefore, elevated AFP levels are prone to occur in patients with P53-mutated HCC. Vessel-encapsulated tumor clusters (VETC) promote HCC progression and metastasis; for example, one study indicated that 75% of HCC presenting with VETC were larger than 5 cm in diameter, suggesting that this specific vascular pattern is associated with tumor progression,33 and other studies have demonstrated that CD34-positive vessel-encapsulating tumor clusters are also more likely to be present in P53-mutated HCC.12 This study also suggested that larger tumor diameters and higher AFP levels are also more likely to be found in P53-mutated HCC patients.

This study has several limitations. First, because this was a single-centre and retrospective study, selection bias was inevitable. Second, we considered that the immunohistochemical expression of P53 indicated a mutation in TP53 (based on the percentage of nuclear staining), which should be confirmed by genomic mapping to improve the accuracy of the results. Third, the tumors in this study were single masses ranging from 10 mm to 100 mm in diameter, and the results cannot be applied to tumors of other diameters or multiple masses. Finally, although preoperative imaging data for P53-mutated HCC patients were obtained, long-term follow-up data are needed to determine the association between outcome and survival.

Conclusion

In conclusion, poor differentiation and rim enhancement on enhanced MRI are useful imaging markers for the diagnosis of P53-mutated HCC. The presence of an enhancing capsule in small HCC (10mm ≤ LTD ≤ 20 mm) can predict P53-mutated HCC, and the presence of corona enhancement and nodule-in-nodule architecture in HCCs with diameters ranging from 20 mm to 50 mm should be highly important for identifying P53-mutated HCC. In large HCC lesions (50 mm ˂ LTD ≤ 100 mm), elevated AFP and enlarged masses should also be emphasized.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants for their valuable support in this study.

Abbreviations

HCC, Hepatocellular carcinoma; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; LI-RADS, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System; AFP, Alpha-fetoprotein; CEA, Carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19–9, Cancer antigen 19–9; LTD, The largest tumor diameter; DWI, Diffusion-weighted imaging; LR-M, Probably or definitely malignant, not HCC specific; VETC, Vessel-encapsulating tumor cluster.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
==== Refs
References

1. van Meer S, de Man RA, Coenraad MJ, et al. Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with increased survival: results from a large cohort in the Netherlands. J Hepatol. 2015;63 (5 ):1156–1163. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2015.06.012 26100498
2. Kulik L, El-Serag HB. Epidemiology and management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterol. 2019;156 (2 ):477–491.e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.065
3. Wu H, Chen X, Chen J, et al. Correlations between P53 mutation status and texture features of ct images for hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods Inf Med. 2019;58 (1 ):42–49. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1688758 31163452
4. Bargonetti J, Manfredi JJ. Multiple roles of the tumor suppressor p53. Curr Opin Oncol. 2002;14 (1 ):86–91. doi:10.1097/00001622-200201000-00015 11790986
5. Yuan RH, Jeng YM, Hu RH, et al. Role of p53 and β-catenin mutations in conjunction with CK19 expression on early tumor recurrence and prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15 (2 ):321–329. doi:10.1007/s11605-010-1373-x 21061181
6. Rebouissou S, Nault JC. Advances in molecular classification and precision oncology in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2020;72 (2 ):215–229. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2019.08.017 31954487
7. Cheng J, Wang W, Sun C, Li M, Wang B, Lv Y. Meta-analysis of the prognostic and diagnostic significance of serum/plasma osteopontin in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48 (9 ):806–814. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000000018 24247813
8. Roayaie S, Obeidat K, Sposito C, et al. Resection of hepatocellular cancer ≤2 cm: results from two Western centers. Hepatol. 2013;57 (4 ):1426–1435. doi:10.1002/hep.25832
9. Heimbach JK. Evolution of liver transplant selection criteria and U.S. allocation policy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2020;40 (4 ):358–364. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1709492 32942324
10. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334 (11 ):693–699. doi:10.1056/NEJM199603143341104 8594428
11. Sugawara Y, Hibi T. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Biosci Trends. 2021;15 (3 ):138–141. doi:10.5582/bst.2021.01094 33746184
12. Kitao A, Matsui O, Zhang Y, et al. Dynamic CT and Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI characteristics of p53-mutated hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiol. 2023;306 (2 ):e220531. doi:10.1148/radiol.220531
13. Tseng PL, Tai MH, Huang CC, et al. Overexpression of VEGF is associated with positive p53 immunostaining in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and adverse outcome of HCC patients. J Surg Oncol. 2008;98 (5 ):349–357. doi:10.1002/jso.21109 18646041
14. Rhee H, An C, Kim HY, Yoo JE, Park YN, Kim MJ. Hepatocellular carcinoma with irregular rim-like arterial phase hyperenhancement: more aggressive pathologic features. Liver Cancer. 2019;8 (1 ):24–40.doi:10.1159/000488540.30815393
15. An C, Kim DW, Park YN, Chung YE, Rhee H, Kim MJ. Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma: preoperative MR imaging to predict early recurrence after curative resection. Radiol. 2015;276 (2 ):433–443. doi:10.1148/radiol.15142394
16. Nakachi K, Tamai H, Mori Y, et al. Prediction of poorly differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma using contrast computed tomography. Cancer Imag. 2014;14 (1 ):7. doi:10.1186/1470-7330-14-7
17. Yu L, Wu M, Zhu G, Xu Y. Emerging roles of the tumor suppressor p53 in metabolism. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2022;9 :762742. doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.762742 35118064
18. Takayasu K, Arii S, Sakamoto M, et al. Impact of resection and ablation for single hypovascular hepatocellular carcinoma ≤2 cm analysed with propensity score weighting. Liver Int. 2018;38 (3 ):484–493. doi:10.1111/liv.13670 29266722
19. Kim H, Kim SS, Shin HC, et al. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: late portal venous phase may improve identification of enhancing capsule. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023;48 (2 ):621–629. doi:10.1007/s00261-022-03756-2 36494608
20. Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB. CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: part II. Extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features. Radiol. 2014;273 (1 ):30–50. doi:10.1148/radiol.14132362
21. Iguchi T, Aishima S, Sanefuji K, et al. Both fibrous capsule formation and extracapsular penetration are powerful predictors of poor survival in human hepatocellular carcinoma: a histological assessment of 365 patients in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16 (9 ):2539–2546. doi:10.1245/s10434-009-0453-1 19533247
22. Chong HH, Yang L, Sheng RF, et al. Multi-scale and multi-parametric radiomics of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI predicts microvascular invasion and outcome in patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 5 cm. Eur Radiol. 2021;31 (7 ):4824–4838. doi:10.1007/s00330-020-07601-2 33447861
23. Sano K, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U, et al. Imaging study of early hepatocellular carcinoma: usefulness of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiol. 2011;261 (3 ):834–844. doi:10.1148/radiol.11101840
24. Do PM, Varanasi L, Fan S, et al. Mutant p53 cooperates with ETS2 to promote etoposide resistance. Genes Dev. 2012;26 (8 ):830–845. doi:10.1101/gad.181685.111 22508727
25. Walerych D, Lisek K, Sommaggio R, et al. Proteasome machinery is instrumental in a common gain-of-function program of the p53 missense mutants in cancer. Nat Cell Biol. 2016;18 (8 ):897–909. doi:10.1038/ncb3380 27347849
26. Xu J, Reumers J, Couceiro JR, et al. Gain of function of mutant p53 by coaggregation with multiple tumor suppressors. Nat Chem Biol. 2011;7 (5 ):285–295. doi:10.1038/nchembio.546 21445056
27. Tohme S, Yazdani HO, Liu Y, et al. Hypoxia mediates mitochondrial biogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma to promote tumor growth through HMGB1 and TLR9 interaction. Hepatol. 2017;66 (1 ):182–197. doi:10.1002/hep.29184
28. Liu HF, Wang M, Wang Q, et al. Multiparametric MRI-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for predicting the pathological differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Insights Imag. 2024;15 (1 ):97. doi:10.1186/s13244-024-01623-w
29. Liu HF, Lu Y, Wang Q, Lu YJ, Xing W. Machine Learning-Based CEMRI radiomics integrating LI-RADS features achieves optimal evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma differentiation. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2023;10 :2103–2115. doi:10.2147/JHC.S434895 38050577
30. Renne SL, Woo HY, Allegra S, et al. Vessels encapsulating tumor clusters (VETC) is a powerful predictor of aggressive hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. 2020;71 (1 ):183–195. doi:10.1002/hep.30814
31. Montal R, Andreu-Oller C, Bassaganyas L, et al. Molecular portrait of high alpha-fetoprotein in hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for biomarker-driven clinical trials. Br J Cancer. 2019;121 (4 ):340–343. doi:10.1038/s41416-019-0513-7 31285588
32. Yamashita T, Kitao A, Matsui O, et al. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and alpha-fetoprotein predict prognosis of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. 2014;60 (5 ):1674–1685. doi:10.1002/hep.27093
33. Fang JH, Zhou HC, Zhang C, et al. A novel vascular pattern promotes metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma in an epithelial-mesenchymal transition-independent manner. Hepatol. 2015;62 (2 ):452–465. doi:10.1002/hep.27760
