Metabolic and magnetic resonance imaging: complementary modalities for the preoperative assessment of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of lateral pelvic lymph nodes for rectal cancer is a topical and controversial issue. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between lateral pelvic lymph node features on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) with oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 284 patients with primary locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection with curative intent between January 2003 and Dec 2018 was undertaken. From this study population, a select cohort of 77 patients with abnormal lateral pelvic lymph nodes on preoperative imaging had imaging re-analysed by radiologists blinded to clinical outcomes. Pre and post neoadjuvant therapy MRI and PET-CT lateral pelvic lymph node features were correlated with oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A lateral pelvic lymph node short axis size ≥5 mm on post neoadjuvant therapy MRI was a significant predictor of worse 3-year local recurrence free survival (HR 8.35, P = 0.001). Lateral pelvic lymph node avidity on post neoadjuvant therapy PET-CT was a significant predictor of worse 3-year distant recurrence free survival (HR 5.62, P = 0.001). No correlation of oncological outcomes with overall survival was identified. CONCLUSION: Lateral pelvic lymph node imaging features on post-neoadjuvant therapy MRI and PET-CT predicted those at risk of rectal cancer recurrence. Further studies are required to confirm these findings that suggest restaging MRI and PET-CT are complementary modalities for the preoperative assessment of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in rectal cancer.

Gallium-68 Ventilation/Perfusion PET-CT and CT Pulmonary Angiography for Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis: An Interobserver Agreement Study.

Objectives: 68Ga Ventilation/Perfusion V/Q PET-CT is a promising imaging tool for pulmonary embolism diagnosis. However, no study has verified whether the interpretation is reproducible between different observers. The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver agreement in the interpretation of V/Q PET-CT for the diagnosis of acute PE, and to compare it to the interobserver agreement of CTPA interpretation. Methods: Twenty-four cancer patients with suspected acute PE underwent V/Q PET-CT and CTPA within 24 h as part of a prospective pilot study evaluating V/Q PET-CT for the management of patients with suspected PE. V/Q PET-CT and CTPA scans were reassessed independently by four nuclear medicine physicians and four radiologists, respectively. Physicians had different levels of expertise in reading V/Q scintigraphy and CTPA. Interpretation was blinded to the initial interpretation and any clinical information or imaging test result. For each modality, results were reported on a binary fashion. V/Q PET/CT scans were read as positive if there was at least one segmental or two subsegmental mismatched perfusion defects. CTPA scans were interpreted as positive if there was a constant intraluminal filling defect. Interobserver agreement was assessed by calculating kappa (κ) coefficients. Results: Out of the 24 V/Q PET-CT scans, the diagnostic conclusion was concordantly negative in 22 patients and concordantly positive in one patient. The remaining scan was interpreted as positive by one reader and negative by three readers. Out of the 24 CTPA scans, the diagnostic conclusion was concordantly negative in 16 and concordantly positive in one. Out of the seven remaining scans, PE was reported by one reader in four cases, by two readers in two cases, by three readers in one case. Most of discordant results on CTPA were related to clots reported on subsegmental arteries. Mean kappa coefficient was 0.79 for V/Q PET-CT interpretation and 0.39 for CTPA interpretation. Conclusions: Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of V/Q PET-CT for PE diagnosis was substantial (kappa 0.79) in a population with a low prevalence of significant PE. Agreement was lower with CTPA, mainly as a result of discrepancies at the level of the subsegmental arteries.

Intrapatient Comparison of the Hepatobiliary Phase of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA in the Differentiation of Hepatocellular Adenoma From Focal Nodular Hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Current imaging guidelines do not specify the preferred hepatobiliary contrast agent when differentiating hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) from focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) on MRI. PURPOSE: To analyze intrapatient differences in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) after use of both gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) and gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced MRI to differentiate HCA from FNH. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Patients who underwent both Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, including 33 patients with 82 lesions (67 HCA; 15 FNH), with a step-down reference standard of pathology, 20% regression, identical appearance to earlier biopsied lesions, and stringent imaging findings. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T and 3T HBP of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI, precontrast fat-suppressed T1 -weighted sequence. ASSESSMENT: Signal intensities relative to the surrounding liver in the HBP were assessed by two observers. STATISTICAL TESTS: Sensitivity and specificity of HCA diagnosis were calculated for both contrast agents. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using Cohen's kappa; differences in degree of certainty for scoring a lesion were calculated by means of the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Differences in signal intensity between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA were calculated using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Almost perfect agreement was found between observers for scored signal intensities with both contrast agents. In 30 of the 82 lesions (37%) a difference was observed between contrast agents in the HBP, with Gd-EOB-DTPA proving correct in all but one of the discordant lesions. When distinguishing HCA from FNH, Gd-BOPTA showed a sensitivity of 46% (31/67) and a specificity of 87% (13/15), while the sensitivity and specificity of Gd-EOB-DTPA was 85% (57/67) and 100% (15/15), respectively. A risk of misclassifying HCA as FNH typically occurs for Gd-BOPTA when lesions are intrinsically hyperintense (P < 0.005). DATA CONCLUSION: The HBP of Gd-EOB-DTPA shows superior accuracy in ruling out HCA in comparison with Gd-BOPTA, especially when the lesion is intrinsically hyperintense on T1 -weighted imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:700-710.