Comparison of preoperative diagnostic performance between dual-energy CT, conventional CT, and MRI in endometrial cancer.

Polish journal of radiology Pub Date : 2024-07-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pjr/189487
Miki Yoshida, Tsukasa Saida, Kensaku Mori, Sodai Hoshiai, Masafumi Sakai, Taishi Amano, Saki Shibuki, Mariko Miyata, Toyomi Sato, Takahito Nakajima
{"title":"Comparison of preoperative diagnostic performance between dual-energy CT, conventional CT, and MRI in endometrial cancer.","authors":"Miki Yoshida, Tsukasa Saida, Kensaku Mori, Sodai Hoshiai, Masafumi Sakai, Taishi Amano, Saki Shibuki, Mariko Miyata, Toyomi Sato, Takahito Nakajima","doi":"10.5114/pjr/189487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the diagnostic performance of virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with endometrial cancer (EC).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective study analysed 45 EC patients (mean age: 62 years, range: 44-84 years) undergoing contrast-enhanced CT with dual-energy CT (DECT) and MRI between September 2021 and October 2022. Dual-energy CT generated conventional CT (C-CT) and 40 keV VMI. Quantitative analysis compared contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of tumour to myometrium between C-CT and VMI. Qualitative assessment by 5 radiologists compared C-CT, VMI, and MRI for myometrial invasion (MI), cervical invasion, and lymph node metastasis. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated and compared for each diagnostic parameter.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Virtual monoenergetic imaging showed significantly higher CNR than C-CT (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and a higher sensitivity for MI than C-CT (<i>p</i> = 0.027) and MRI (<i>p</i> = 0.011) but lower specificity than MRI (<i>p</i> = 0.018). C-CT had a higher sensitivity and AUC for cervical invasion than MRI (<i>p</i> = 0.018 and 0.004, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study found no significant superiority of MRI over CT across all diagnostic parameters. VMI demonstrated heightened sensitivity for MI, and C-CT showed greater sensitivity and AUC for cervical invasion than MRI. This suggests that combining VMI with C-CT holds promise as a comprehensive preoperative staging tool for EC when MRI cannot be performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":94174,"journal":{"name":"Polish journal of radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321031/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr/189487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with endometrial cancer (EC).

Material and methods: This retrospective study analysed 45 EC patients (mean age: 62 years, range: 44-84 years) undergoing contrast-enhanced CT with dual-energy CT (DECT) and MRI between September 2021 and October 2022. Dual-energy CT generated conventional CT (C-CT) and 40 keV VMI. Quantitative analysis compared contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of tumour to myometrium between C-CT and VMI. Qualitative assessment by 5 radiologists compared C-CT, VMI, and MRI for myometrial invasion (MI), cervical invasion, and lymph node metastasis. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated and compared for each diagnostic parameter.

Results: Virtual monoenergetic imaging showed significantly higher CNR than C-CT (p < 0.001) and a higher sensitivity for MI than C-CT (p = 0.027) and MRI (p = 0.011) but lower specificity than MRI (p = 0.018). C-CT had a higher sensitivity and AUC for cervical invasion than MRI (p = 0.018 and 0.004, respectively).

Conclusions: The study found no significant superiority of MRI over CT across all diagnostic parameters. VMI demonstrated heightened sensitivity for MI, and C-CT showed greater sensitivity and AUC for cervical invasion than MRI. This suggests that combining VMI with C-CT holds promise as a comprehensive preoperative staging tool for EC when MRI cannot be performed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双能 CT、传统 CT 和核磁共振成像对子宫内膜癌术前诊断效果的比较。
目的:比较虚拟单能成像(VMI)、计算机断层扫描(CT)和磁共振成像(MRI)对子宫内膜癌(EC)患者的诊断性能:这项回顾性研究分析了2021年9月至2022年10月期间接受对比增强CT与双能CT(DECT)和MRI检查的45名子宫内膜癌患者(平均年龄:62岁,范围:44-84岁)。双能 CT 产生常规 CT(C-CT)和 40 keV VMI。定量分析比较了 C-CT 和 VMI 之间肿瘤与子宫肌层的对比噪声比 (CNR)。由 5 位放射科医生对 C-CT、VMI 和 MRI 进行定性评估,比较子宫肌层侵犯(MI)、宫颈侵犯和淋巴结转移的情况。计算并比较了每个诊断参数的敏感性、特异性、准确性和接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC):虚拟单能量成像显示的 CNR 明显高于 C-CT(p < 0.001),对 MI 的敏感性高于 C-CT(p = 0.027)和 MRI(p = 0.011),但特异性低于 MRI(p = 0.018)。C-CT对颈椎侵犯的敏感性和AUC均高于核磁共振成像(p = 0.018和0.004):研究发现,在所有诊断参数上,核磁共振成像都没有明显优于 CT。VMI显示出对MI更高的敏感性,而C-CT显示出比MRI更高的宫颈侵犯敏感性和AUC。这表明,在无法进行核磁共振成像的情况下,将 VMI 与 C-CT 结合使用有望成为 EC 的术前综合分期工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Advancing radiology education for medical students: leveraging digital tools and resources. Application of ultrasound-guided intranodal lymphangiography in the diagnosis and treatment of chylous ascites after abdominal surgery. Medication-induced changes on magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. The peritumoral brain zone in glioblastoma: a review of the pretreatment approach. Comparative efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus B-mode ultrasound in the diagnosis and monitoring of hepatic abscesses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1