Contrast- vs. non-contrast enhanced MR data sets for characterization of perianal fistulas.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy between pre- and post-contrast MRI sequences in perianal fistulas using intra-operative findings as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 50 patients with a history of perianal fistula and MRI performed between January 2006 and January 2018 was performed. The inclusion criteria were patients who underwent MRI prior to surgery and had a detailed surgical report available. Pre- and post-contrast MR data sets were evaluated by two radiologists at two-week-intervals, assessed fistula type, internal/external opening, presence of abscess/secondary tracts, and confidence scores. The area under the curve (AUC) was used for comparison the diagnostic ability. The sensitivity and specificity were compared using the McNemar's test. RESULTS: The confidence scores in detecting perianal fistulas were significantly higher in the post-contrast MR data set (p < 0.003). The post-contrast MR data set had similar ability to classify perianal fistulas as combined T2-DWI and isolated T2 data sets in 49/50 cases. For internal/external opening, the post-contrast MR, combined T2-DWI, and isolated T2 data sets had 100% concordance with intra-operative reports. For perianal abscess, there was no significant difference in sensitivity or AUC value between the isolated T2 or combined T2-DWI data sets and post-contrast MR data set (p > 0.05). All MR data sets correctly identified secondary tracts in all 50 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although contrast-enhanced MR studies can improve a radiologist's confidence, non-contrast MR studies had similar diagnostic efficacy in identifying perianal fistulas and their complications. Therefore, a non-contrast study may suffice in selected patients such as those with renal impairment.

Can MR imaging be useful in differentiating low rectal cancer from anal cancer?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of pelvic MR imaging in differentiating between low rectal and anal cancers using the pathological results as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, retrospective analysis of 100 patients with a history of low rectal (n = 50) or anal (n = 50) cancers who underwent staging pelvic MR imaging before treatment was performed. The following parameters were analyzed: distance from the anal verge to the tumor, percentage of tumor above puborectalis muscle, tumor size, T2W signal intensity, sphincter/levator muscles invasion, organ invasion, and MRI diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with low rectal and anal cancers. Distances from the anal verge to the tumor were compared using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: From the ROC curves, the cut-off value for the distance from the anal verge to the tumor in differentiating between low rectal and anal cancers was 2.1 cm and the area under the ROC curve was 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.97). Multivariate logistic regression revealed three significant factors in differentiating between low rectal and anal cancers, including T2 mixed hyper- and hyposignal intensity (OR 66.00, 95% CI 4.66-934.81), distance cut-off value (OR 34.72, 95% CI 5.73-210.27), and absence of sphincter invasion (OR 18.75, 95% CI 1.91-183.96), with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 98%, 88%, 89%, and 97%, respectively, and diagnostic accuracy increased from 79% (reader 1) and 82% (reader 2) to 93%. CONCLUSION: MR imaging can be useful to differentiating between low rectal and anal cancers which benefits staging and treatment planning.