简略磁共振成像在直肠癌治疗后评估中的实用性。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Acta radiologica Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1177/02841851241253936
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":"简略磁共振成像在直肠癌治疗后评估中的实用性。","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

背景:使用磁共振成像(MRI)对直肠癌(RC)患者进行治疗后评估会增加医疗资源负担:目的:评估简略磁共振成像(A-MRI)在直肠癌患者治疗后评估中的诊断性能:这项回顾性研究纳入了接受非对比直肠磁共振成像和标准肝脏磁共振成像以及腹部对比增强计算机断层扫描(CECT)进行治疗后评估的RC患者。A-MRI包括上腹部和盆腔的弥散加权成像(DWI)和T2加权成像。在检测存活疾病方面,三名放射科医生分别独立审查了 A-MRI、CECT 和标准肝脏 MRI。在考虑所有可用信息(包括病理学、FDG-PET、内窥镜检查结果和临床随访)的基础上,采用参考标准对诊断结果进行比较:我们共纳入了 78 名患者(50 名男性,28 名女性;平均年龄=60.9 ± 10.2 岁),观察到 34 名患者(43.6%)有存活疾病。按患者分析,A-MRI 的灵敏度(95% 对 81%,P = 0.04)和准确度(93% 对 82%,P = 0.42)和准确度(97% 对 98%,P = 0.06)明显高于标准肝脏 MRI。在基于每个病灶的分析中,A-MRI 的病灶可探测性明显优于 CECT(优点值为 0.91 对 0.77,P = 0.75):结论:A-MRI 在 RC 治疗后评估中表现出比 CECT 更高的灵敏度和诊断准确性,其表现与标准肝脏 MRI 相当。A-MRI为RC患者的随访提供了诊断附加值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Utility of abbreviated MRI in the post-treatment evaluation of rectal cancer.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta radiologica
Acta radiologica 医学-核医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
A survey of bridging bone on chest radiography shows a greater than expected prevalence of marginal syndesmophytes. Can the second phase of contrast-enhanced MRA of the neck provide additional information in the acute stroke setting? Inter-reader agreement of LI-RADS treatment response algorithm among three readers with different seniorities for hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional therapy. Visual assessment of cerebrospinal fluid flow dynamics using 3D T2-weighted SPACE sequence-based classification system. Correlation between common iliac vein geometry and the risk of deep vein thrombosis in patients with May-Thurner syndrome.
×
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