The Assessment of Irradiated Bladder Carcinoma Using Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging
AIM: To evaluate the role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCEMRI) in distinguishing residual or recurrent tumour from radiation change in patients with bladder carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with biopsy proven bladder carcinoma were imaged before and at 4 a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical radiology 2001-02, Vol.56 (2), p.94-98 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | AIM: To evaluate the role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCEMRI) in distinguishing residual or recurrent tumour from radiation change in patients with bladder carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with biopsy proven bladder carcinoma were imaged before and at 4 and 12 months after radiotherapy (XRT) using conventional and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 0.5 Tesla. An enhancement of >1.54 times above baseline at 80s post-contrast injection proved a reliable indicator of tumour before radiotherapy and was therefore applied to the assessment of patients after XRT. Conventional MR images and dynamic enhancement profiles (DEPs) from the site of previous tumour were scored by three radiologists for the presence of tumour at 4 and 12 months after XRT. Findings were compared with cystoscopic biopsy.
RESULTS: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging had negative predictive values of 100% and 93% for tumour recurrence at 4 and 12 months, respectively. The positive predictive values, sensitivity and specificity were 48, 100 and 48% at 4 months and 50, 80 and +76% at 12 months post XRT, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging may prove reliable in excluding the presence of persistent or recurrent tumour up to 12 months after XRT.Dobson, M. J. etal. (2001). Clinical Radiology, 56, 94–99. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0009-9260 1365-229X |
DOI: | 10.1053/crad.2000.0560 |