Lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: comparison of MDCT and MR imaging for diagnostic accuracy
Purpose To compare the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) for regional nodal metastases with different short-axis diameter ranges in rectal cancer patients. Methods Rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent both MDCT and HR-MRI before surgery were included. The maximum...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Abdominal imaging 2019-11, Vol.44 (11), p.3625-3631 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 3631 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 3625 |
| container_title | Abdominal imaging |
| container_volume | 44 |
| creator | Liu, Yiyan Wen, Ziqiang Yang, Xinyue Lu, Baolan Xiao, Xiaojuan Chen, Yan Yu, Shenping |
| description | Purpose
To compare the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) for regional nodal metastases with different short-axis diameter ranges in rectal cancer patients.
Methods
Rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent both MDCT and HR-MRI before surgery were included. The maximum short-axis diameters of the nodes were measured, and were classified as benign or malignant on imaging findings. All of the nodes were subdivided as follows: ≤ 5 mm (Group A), > 5 mm and ≤ 10 mm (Group B) , and > 10 mm (Group C). The postoperative pathological reports were used as the standard, and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, ROC curve, and AUC value were calculated for each subgroup.
Results
A total of 592 nodes were included in the node-to-node evaluation. In Group A, the specificity and accuracy of HR-MRI were significantly higher than those of MDCT (99.28% vs. 93.99%,
P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00261-019-02240-8 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2301443537</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2300453674</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-8fd8473772ef93e94e7a66c2b9c8fa3f9c8acbcdb28ffa3229a5f3c1b4e3096e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1LAzEQhoMoVtQ_4EECXrysTj52s-tN6ie0CFLBW8hmk7rSTWqye-i_N7VawYMwMDPkmXeSvAidELggAOIyAtCCZECqDCjlkJU76ICyosgA8nJ3W_PXETqO8R0ASJETQvN9NGIkLxnn4gCpyapbvmHnG4M706uYoo24dTgY3asF1sppE66w9t1ShTZ6h73F05vxDCvX4Okzbjs1b90cWx9w06q587FvNVZaD0Hp1RHas2oRzfF3PkQvd7ez8UM2ebp_HF9PMs1E3melbUoumBDU2IqZihuhikLTutKlVcympHStm5qWNvWUViq3TJOaGwZVYdghOt_oLoP_GEzsZddGbRYL5YwfoqQMCOcsZyKhZ3_Qdz8El263poDnrBA8UXRD6eBjDMbKZUhvDStJQK49kBsPZPJAfnkgyzR0-i091J1ptiM_P54AtgFiOnJzE353_yP7CQFHkRg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2300453674</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: comparison of MDCT and MR imaging for diagnostic accuracy</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Liu, Yiyan ; Wen, Ziqiang ; Yang, Xinyue ; Lu, Baolan ; Xiao, Xiaojuan ; Chen, Yan ; Yu, Shenping</creator><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yiyan ; Wen, Ziqiang ; Yang, Xinyue ; Lu, Baolan ; Xiao, Xiaojuan ; Chen, Yan ; Yu, Shenping</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) for regional nodal metastases with different short-axis diameter ranges in rectal cancer patients.
Methods
Rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent both MDCT and HR-MRI before surgery were included. The maximum short-axis diameters of the nodes were measured, and were classified as benign or malignant on imaging findings. All of the nodes were subdivided as follows: ≤ 5 mm (Group A), > 5 mm and ≤ 10 mm (Group B) , and > 10 mm (Group C). The postoperative pathological reports were used as the standard, and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, ROC curve, and AUC value were calculated for each subgroup.
Results
A total of 592 nodes were included in the node-to-node evaluation. In Group A, the specificity and accuracy of HR-MRI were significantly higher than those of MDCT (99.28% vs. 93.99%,
P
< 0.001; 95.78% vs. 89.56%,
P
= 0.010; respectively). In Group B, the specificity and accuracy of HR-MRI were also higher than those of MDCT (98.36% vs. 55.74%,
P
< 0.001; 80.45% vs. 66.17%,
P
< 0.001; respectively). For Groups A and B, the AUCs of MDCT were both 0.65, whereas those of HR-MRI were 0.76 and 0.82, respectively. In Group C, all nine malignant nodes were correctly diagnosed metastases on MDCT, whereas one was misjudged as benign on HR-MRI.
Conclusions
The diagnostic value of HR-MRI is superior to that of MDCT, with higher specificity, accuracy, and AUC values for HR-MRI than for MDCT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2366-004X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2366-0058</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02240-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31583447</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Adenocarcinoma ; Benign ; Cancer ; Colorectal cancer ; Diagnostic systems ; Gastroenterology ; Hepatology ; Imaging ; Lymph nodes ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Radiology ; Rectum ; Special Section: Rectal Cancer ; Subgroups ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Abdominal imaging, 2019-11, Vol.44 (11), p.3625-3631</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>Abdominal Radiology is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-8fd8473772ef93e94e7a66c2b9c8fa3f9c8acbcdb28ffa3229a5f3c1b4e3096e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-8fd8473772ef93e94e7a66c2b9c8fa3f9c8acbcdb28ffa3229a5f3c1b4e3096e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5988-781X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00261-019-02240-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-019-02240-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31583447$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yiyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wen, Ziqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Xinyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Baolan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Xiaojuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Shenping</creatorcontrib><title>Lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: comparison of MDCT and MR imaging for diagnostic accuracy</title><title>Abdominal imaging</title><addtitle>Abdom Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) for regional nodal metastases with different short-axis diameter ranges in rectal cancer patients.
Methods
Rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent both MDCT and HR-MRI before surgery were included. The maximum short-axis diameters of the nodes were measured, and were classified as benign or malignant on imaging findings. All of the nodes were subdivided as follows: ≤ 5 mm (Group A), > 5 mm and ≤ 10 mm (Group B) , and > 10 mm (Group C). The postoperative pathological reports were used as the standard, and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, ROC curve, and AUC value were calculated for each subgroup.
Results
A total of 592 nodes were included in the node-to-node evaluation. In Group A, the specificity and accuracy of HR-MRI were significantly higher than those of MDCT (99.28% vs. 93.99%,
P
< 0.001; 95.78% vs. 89.56%,
P
= 0.010; respectively). In Group B, the specificity and accuracy of HR-MRI were also higher than those of MDCT (98.36% vs. 55.74%,
P
< 0.001; 80.45% vs. 66.17%,
P
< 0.001; respectively). For Groups A and B, the AUCs of MDCT were both 0.65, whereas those of HR-MRI were 0.76 and 0.82, respectively. In Group C, all nine malignant nodes were correctly diagnosed metastases on MDCT, whereas one was misjudged as benign on HR-MRI.
Conclusions
The diagnostic value of HR-MRI is superior to that of MDCT, with higher specificity, accuracy, and AUC values for HR-MRI than for MDCT.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Adenocarcinoma</subject><subject>Benign</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Lymph nodes</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Rectum</subject><subject>Special Section: Rectal Cancer</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>2366-004X</issn><issn>2366-0058</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1LAzEQhoMoVtQ_4EECXrysTj52s-tN6ie0CFLBW8hmk7rSTWqye-i_N7VawYMwMDPkmXeSvAidELggAOIyAtCCZECqDCjlkJU76ICyosgA8nJ3W_PXETqO8R0ASJETQvN9NGIkLxnn4gCpyapbvmHnG4M706uYoo24dTgY3asF1sppE66w9t1ShTZ6h73F05vxDCvX4Okzbjs1b90cWx9w06q587FvNVZaD0Hp1RHas2oRzfF3PkQvd7ez8UM2ebp_HF9PMs1E3melbUoumBDU2IqZihuhikLTutKlVcympHStm5qWNvWUViq3TJOaGwZVYdghOt_oLoP_GEzsZddGbRYL5YwfoqQMCOcsZyKhZ3_Qdz8El263poDnrBA8UXRD6eBjDMbKZUhvDStJQK49kBsPZPJAfnkgyzR0-i091J1ptiM_P54AtgFiOnJzE353_yP7CQFHkRg</recordid><startdate>20191101</startdate><enddate>20191101</enddate><creator>Liu, Yiyan</creator><creator>Wen, Ziqiang</creator><creator>Yang, Xinyue</creator><creator>Lu, Baolan</creator><creator>Xiao, Xiaojuan</creator><creator>Chen, Yan</creator><creator>Yu, Shenping</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5988-781X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191101</creationdate><title>Lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: comparison of MDCT and MR imaging for diagnostic accuracy</title><author>Liu, Yiyan ; Wen, Ziqiang ; Yang, Xinyue ; Lu, Baolan ; Xiao, Xiaojuan ; Chen, Yan ; Yu, Shenping</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-8fd8473772ef93e94e7a66c2b9c8fa3f9c8acbcdb28ffa3229a5f3c1b4e3096e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Adenocarcinoma</topic><topic>Benign</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Lymph nodes</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Rectum</topic><topic>Special Section: Rectal Cancer</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yiyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wen, Ziqiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Xinyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Baolan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Xiaojuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Shenping</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liu, Yiyan</au><au>Wen, Ziqiang</au><au>Yang, Xinyue</au><au>Lu, Baolan</au><au>Xiao, Xiaojuan</au><au>Chen, Yan</au><au>Yu, Shenping</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: comparison of MDCT and MR imaging for diagnostic accuracy</atitle><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle><stitle>Abdom Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><date>2019-11-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>3625</spage><epage>3631</epage><pages>3625-3631</pages><issn>2366-004X</issn><eissn>2366-0058</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) for regional nodal metastases with different short-axis diameter ranges in rectal cancer patients.
Methods
Rectal adenocarcinoma patients who underwent both MDCT and HR-MRI before surgery were included. The maximum short-axis diameters of the nodes were measured, and were classified as benign or malignant on imaging findings. All of the nodes were subdivided as follows: ≤ 5 mm (Group A), > 5 mm and ≤ 10 mm (Group B) , and > 10 mm (Group C). The postoperative pathological reports were used as the standard, and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, ROC curve, and AUC value were calculated for each subgroup.
Results
A total of 592 nodes were included in the node-to-node evaluation. In Group A, the specificity and accuracy of HR-MRI were significantly higher than those of MDCT (99.28% vs. 93.99%,
P
< 0.001; 95.78% vs. 89.56%,
P
= 0.010; respectively). In Group B, the specificity and accuracy of HR-MRI were also higher than those of MDCT (98.36% vs. 55.74%,
P
< 0.001; 80.45% vs. 66.17%,
P
< 0.001; respectively). For Groups A and B, the AUCs of MDCT were both 0.65, whereas those of HR-MRI were 0.76 and 0.82, respectively. In Group C, all nine malignant nodes were correctly diagnosed metastases on MDCT, whereas one was misjudged as benign on HR-MRI.
Conclusions
The diagnostic value of HR-MRI is superior to that of MDCT, with higher specificity, accuracy, and AUC values for HR-MRI than for MDCT.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>31583447</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00261-019-02240-8</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5988-781X</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2366-004X |
| ispartof | Abdominal imaging, 2019-11, Vol.44 (11), p.3625-3631 |
| issn | 2366-004X 2366-0058 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2301443537 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Accuracy Adenocarcinoma Benign Cancer Colorectal cancer Diagnostic systems Gastroenterology Hepatology Imaging Lymph nodes Magnetic resonance imaging Medical diagnosis Medical imaging Medicine Medicine & Public Health Metastases Metastasis Radiology Rectum Special Section: Rectal Cancer Subgroups Surgery |
| title | Lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: comparison of MDCT and MR imaging for diagnostic accuracy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T23%3A23%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lymph%20node%20metastasis%20in%20rectal%20cancer:%20comparison%20of%20MDCT%20and%20MR%20imaging%20for%20diagnostic%20accuracy&rft.jtitle=Abdominal%20imaging&rft.au=Liu,%20Yiyan&rft.date=2019-11-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=3625&rft.epage=3631&rft.pages=3625-3631&rft.issn=2366-004X&rft.eissn=2366-0058&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00261-019-02240-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2300453674%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2300453674&rft_id=info:pmid/31583447&rfr_iscdi=true |