Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Utility of abbreviated MRI in the post-treatment evaluation of rectal cancer.
Park, Sungeun; Park, Hee Sun; Jang, Siwon; Cho, Jungheum; Kim, Jae Hyun; Yu, Mi Hye; Jung, Sung Il; Kim, Young Jun; Hwang, Dae-Yong.
Affiliation
  • Park S; Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Park HS; Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Jang S; Department of Radiology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Cho J; Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
  • Kim JH; Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Yu MH; Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Jung SI; Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Kim YJ; Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Hwang DY; Department of Surgery, Colorectal Cancer Center, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Acta Radiol ; 65(7): 689-699, 2024 Jul.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38778748
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Post-treatment evaluation of patients with rectal cancer (RC) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) burdens medical resources, necessitating an exploration of abbreviated protocols.

PURPOSE:

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI (A-MRI) for the post-treatment evaluation of RC patients. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

This retrospective study included RC patients who underwent non-contrast rectal MRI and standard liver MRI, as well as abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for post-treatment evaluation. A-MRI comprised diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and T2-weighted imaging of the upper abdomen and the pelvic cavity. Three radiologists independently reviewed A-MRI, CECT, and standard liver MRI in the detection of viable disease. The diagnostic performances were compared using a reference standard considering all available information, including pathology, FDG-PET, endoscopic results, and clinical follow-up.

RESULTS:

We included 78 patients (50 men, 28 women; mean age=60.9 ± 10.2 years) and observed viable disease in 34 (43.6%). On a per-patient-basis analysis, A-MRI showed significantly higher sensitivity (95% vs. 81%, P = 0.04) and higher accuracy (93% vs. 82%, P < 0.01), compared to those of CECT, while A-MRI showed comparable sensitivity (91% vs. 91%, P = 0.42) and accuracy (97% vs. 98%, P = 0.06) to that of standard liver MRI. On a per-lesion-based analysis, A-MRI exhibited significantly superior lesion detectability than that of CECT (figure of merit 0.91 vs. 0.77, P < 0.01) and comparable to that of standard liver MRI (figure of merit 0.91 vs. 0.92, P = 0.75).

CONCLUSION:

A-MRI exhibited higher sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy than those of CECT in the post-treatment evaluation of RC, while it showed comparable performances with standard liver MRI. A-MRI provides diagnostic added value in the follow-up of RC patients.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Rectal Neoplasms / Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Sensitivity and Specificity Limits: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Year: 2024 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Rectal Neoplasms / Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Sensitivity and Specificity Limits: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Year: 2024 Type: Article