Breast cancer is the most common primary malignant tumor in women.Surgery combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy in time can prolong patients'survival time.Based on multi-parameter MRI(mpMRI),habitat imaging(HI)can identify different habitat subregions of tumors,characterize intratumor heterogeneity(ITH)and reflect the biological information of the tumor,hence being helpful for diagnosis and evaluation of breast cancer.The research progresses of mpMRI HI in breast cancer were reviewed in this article.

Objective To investigate the risk factors of in-hospital mortality and establish a risk prediction model for patients receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(VA-ECMO).Methods We retrospectively collected the data of 302 patients receiving VA-ECMO in ICU of 3 hospitals in Guangdong Province between January,2015 and January,2022 using a convenience sampling method.The patients were divided into a derivation cohort(201 cases)and a validation cohort(101 cases).Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the risk factors for in-hospital death of these patients,based on which a risk prediction model was established in the form of a nomogram.The receiver operator characteristic(ROC)curve,calibration curve and clinical decision curve were used to evaluate the discrimination ability,calibration and clinical validity of this model.Results The in-hospital mortality risk prediction model was established based the risk factors including hypertension(OR=3.694,95%CI:1.582-8.621),continuous renal replacement therapy(OR=9.661,95%CI:4.103-22.745),elevated Na2+ level(OR=1.048,95%CI:1.003-1.095)and increased hemoglobin level(OR=0.987,95%CI:0.977-0.998).In the derivation cohort,the area under the ROC curve(AUC)of this model was 0.829(95%CI:0.770-0.889),greater than those of the 4 single factors(all AUC<0.800),APACHE Ⅱ Score(AUC=0.777,95%CI:0.714-0.840)and the SOFA Score(AUC=0.721,95%CI:0.647-0.796).The results of internal validation showed that the AUC of the model was 0.774(95%CI:0.679-0.869),and the goodness of fit test showed a good fitting of this model(χ2=4.629,P>0.05).Conclusion The risk prediction model for in-hospital mortality of patients on VA-ECMO has good differentiation,calibration and clinical effectiveness and outperforms the commonly used disease severity scoring system,and thus can be used for assessing disease severity and prognostic risk level in critically ill patients.

Objective To investigate the risk factors of in-hospital mortality and establish a risk prediction model for patients receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(VA-ECMO).Methods We retrospectively collected the data of 302 patients receiving VA-ECMO in ICU of 3 hospitals in Guangdong Province between January,2015 and January,2022 using a convenience sampling method.The patients were divided into a derivation cohort(201 cases)and a validation cohort(101 cases).Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the risk factors for in-hospital death of these patients,based on which a risk prediction model was established in the form of a nomogram.The receiver operator characteristic(ROC)curve,calibration curve and clinical decision curve were used to evaluate the discrimination ability,calibration and clinical validity of this model.Results The in-hospital mortality risk prediction model was established based the risk factors including hypertension(OR=3.694,95%CI:1.582-8.621),continuous renal replacement therapy(OR=9.661,95%CI:4.103-22.745),elevated Na2+ level(OR=1.048,95%CI:1.003-1.095)and increased hemoglobin level(OR=0.987,95%CI:0.977-0.998).In the derivation cohort,the area under the ROC curve(AUC)of this model was 0.829(95%CI:0.770-0.889),greater than those of the 4 single factors(all AUC<0.800),APACHE Ⅱ Score(AUC=0.777,95%CI:0.714-0.840)and the SOFA Score(AUC=0.721,95%CI:0.647-0.796).The results of internal validation showed that the AUC of the model was 0.774(95%CI:0.679-0.869),and the goodness of fit test showed a good fitting of this model(χ2=4.629,P>0.05).Conclusion The risk prediction model for in-hospital mortality of patients on VA-ECMO has good differentiation,calibration and clinical effectiveness and outperforms the commonly used disease severity scoring system,and thus can be used for assessing disease severity and prognostic risk level in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To study the anatomical characteristics of blood vessels in the lateral segment of the vertebral body through the surgical approach of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using MRI imaging, and evaluate its potential vascular safety zone. METHODS: The lumbar MRI data of 107 patients with low back and leg pain who met the selection criteria between October 2019 and November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The vascular emanation angles, vascular travel angles, and the length of vessels in the lateral segments of the left vertebral body of L ₁-L ₅, as well as the distance between the segmental vessels in different Moro junctions of the vertebral body and their distances from the edges of the vertebrae in the same sequence (bottom marked as I, top as S) were measured. The gap between the large abdominal vessels and the lateral vessels of the vertebral body was set as the lateral vascular safe zones of the lumbar spine, and the extent of the safe zones (namely the area between the vessels) was measured. The anterior 1/3 of the lumbar intervertebral disc was taken as the simulated puncture center, and the area with a diameter of 22 mm around it as the simulated channel area. The proportion of vessels in the channel was further counted. In addition, the proportions of segmental vessels at L ₅ without a clear travel and with an emanation angel less than 90° were calculated. RESULTS: Except for the differences in the vascular emanation angles between L ₄ and L ₅, the vascular travel angles between L ₁, L ₂ and L ₄, L ₅, and the length of vessels in the lateral segments of the vertebral body among L ₁-L ₄ were not significant ( P>0.05), the differences in the vascular emanation angles, vascular travel angles, and the length of vessels between the rest segments were all significant ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the distance between vessels of L ₁, L ₂ and L ₂, L ₃ at Moro Ⅰ-Ⅳ junctions ( P>0.05), in L ₃, L ₄ and L ₄, L ₅ at Ⅱ and Ⅲ junction ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the vascular distance of L ₂, L ₃ between Ⅱ, Ⅲ junction and Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction, and the vascular distance of L ₃, L ₄ between Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction and Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction ( P>0.05). The vascular distance of the other adjacent vertebral bodies was significant different between different Moro junctions ( P<0.05). Except that there was no significant difference in the distance between L ₂I and L ₃S at Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction, L ₃I and L ₄S at Ⅱ, Ⅲ junction, and L ₂I and L ₃S at Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction ( P>0.05), there was significant difference of the vascular distance between the bottom of one segment and the top of the next in the other segments ( P<0.05). Comparison between junctions: Except for the L ₃S between Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction and Ⅱ, Ⅲ junction, and L ₅S between Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction and Ⅱ, Ⅲ and Ⅲ, Ⅳ junctions had no significant difference ( P>0.05), there were significant differences in the distance between the other segmental vessels and the vertebral edge of the same sequence in different Moro junctions ( P<0.05). The overall proportion of vessels in the simulated channels was 40.19% (43/107), and the proportion of vessels in L ₁ (41.12%, 44/107) and L ₅ (18.69%, 20/107) was higher than that in the other segments. The proportion of vessels in the channel of Moro zone Ⅰ (46.73%, 50/107) and zone Ⅱ (32.71%, 35/107) was higher than that in the zone Ⅲ, while no segmental vessels in L ₁ and L ₂ were found in the channel of zone Ⅲ ( χ ²=74.950, P<0.001). Moreover, 26.17% (28/107) of the segmental vessels of lateral L ₅ showed no movement, and 27.10% (29/107) vascular emanation angles of lateral L ₅ were less than 90°. CONCLUSION L ₁ and L ₅ segmental vessels are most likely to be injured in Moro zones Ⅰ and Ⅱ, and the placement of OLIF channels in L _{4, 5} at Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction should be avoided. It is usually safe to place fixation pins at the vertebral body edge on the cephalic side of the intervertebral space, but it is safer to place them on the caudal side in L _{1, 2} (Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction), L _{3, 4} (Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction), and L _{4, 5} (Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ junctions).
Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Spinal Puncture ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Anticoagulants ; Bone Nails