Sungeun Park, Hee Sun Park, Siwon Jang, Jungheum Cho, Jae Hyun Kim, Mi Hye Yu, Sung Il Jung, Young Jun Kim, Dae-Yong Hwang
{"title":"Utility of abbreviated MRI in the post-treatment evaluation of rectal cancer.","authors":"Sungeun Park, Hee Sun Park, Siwon Jang, Jungheum Cho, Jae Hyun Kim, Mi Hye Yu, Sung Il Jung, Young Jun Kim, Dae-Yong Hwang","doi":"10.1177/02841851241253936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-treatment evaluation of patients with rectal cancer (RC) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) burdens medical resources, necessitating an exploration of abbreviated protocols.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI (A-MRI) for the post-treatment evaluation of RC patients.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%, <i>P </i>= 0.04) and higher accuracy (93% vs. 82%, <i>P </i>< 0.01), compared to those of CECT, while A-MRI showed comparable sensitivity (91% vs. 91%, <i>P </i>= 0.42) and accuracy (97% vs. 98%, <i>P</i> = 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, <i>P </i>< 0.01) and comparable to that of standard liver MRI (figure of merit 0.91 vs. 0.92, <i>P = </i>0.75).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7143,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica","volume":" ","pages":"689-699"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851241253936","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
Acta Radiologica publishes articles on all aspects of radiology, from clinical radiology to experimental work. It is known for articles based on experimental work and contrast media research, giving priority to scientific original papers. The distinguished international editorial board also invite review articles, short communications and technical and instrumental notes.