Rectal carcinoma: Prospective comparison of conventional and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat-suppressed MR imaging

The purpose of this study is to compare the usefulness of conventional MR imaging and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed MR imaging for the depiction and staging of rectal carcinoma. Thirty‐two patients were prospectively evaluated by MR imaging using a 1.5‐T unit. Based on the result...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 1996-05, Vol.6 (3), p.465-471
Hauptverfasser: Okizuka, Hiromi, Sugimura, Kazuro, Yoshizako, Takeshi, Kaji, Yasushi, Wada, Akihiko
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 471
container_issue 3
container_start_page 465
container_title Journal of magnetic resonance imaging
container_volume 6
creator Okizuka, Hiromi
Sugimura, Kazuro
Yoshizako, Takeshi
Kaji, Yasushi
Wada, Akihiko
description The purpose of this study is to compare the usefulness of conventional MR imaging and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed MR imaging for the depiction and staging of rectal carcinoma. Thirty‐two patients were prospectively evaluated by MR imaging using a 1.5‐T unit. Based on the results of a barium study and/or digital examination, a balloon catheter was inserted to the level of the lesion before examination. Both conventional T1‐ and T2‐weighted images and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images were obtained for all patients. The kappa statistics were performed for the evaluation of interobserver agreement and the McNemar test was performed for the analysis of staging accuracy. When only T1‐ and T2‐weighted images were used, 5 of 32 tumors were not detected and the extent of 18 of 32 tumors were unclear. However, when gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging was added, 24 of 32 tumors were well defined and only one tumor was not detected. In determining the depth of invasion, the staging accuracy was 72% for conventional imaging and 68% for all images combined. There was no significant difference between with gadopentetate dimeglumine fat‐suppressed imaging and conventional imaging (P > .05). Use of gadopentetate dimeglumine (fat‐suppressed imaging) resulted in overestimation of muscular invasion, peri‐rectal fat invasion, and adjacent organ invasion in 12 patients, whereas nine patients were overestimated without the use of gadopentetate dimeglumine. In the detection of metastatic lymph nodes, gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging also was not useful. Tumor detection was excellent using gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed images. However, the accuracy of staging was not improved by obtaining such images.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jmri.1880060309
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78246048</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78246048</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4489-c2edc25692837d63411557c3bedc35ae5ee24c8dd0dc30587613f8babfa793643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUE1v1DAUtBColMKZE5JP3NL62w6cUAWlaFvQCsTR8tovi0vipHZS2H-Pq10VceL03sybGT0NQi8pOaWEsLObIcdTagwhinDSPkLHVDLWMGnU47oTyRtqiH6KnpVyQwhpWyGP0JHRTAjKjtFuDX52PfYu-5jGwb3BX_JYpsrGO8B-HCaXYxkTHruK0h2kOY6pOlwKeOvCOFUGZjcDDnGAbb8MMQGG9MMlDwF3bm7KMk0ZSqnwao3j4LYxbZ-jJ53rC7w4zBP07cP7r-cfm9Xni8vzd6vGC2HaxjMInknVMsN1UFxQKqX2fFNpLh1IACa8CYFUTKTRivLObNymc7rlSvAT9HqfO-XxdoEy2yEWD33vEoxLsdowoYgwVXi2F_paQMnQ2SnXX_POUmLvy7b3Zdu_ZVfHq0P0shkgPOgP7db72_39V-xh9784--lqfflPerN3xzLD7we3yz-t0lxL-_36wmp2zdmqXVnF_wAsQ54D</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78246048</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rectal carcinoma: Prospective comparison of conventional and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat-suppressed MR imaging</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Okizuka, Hiromi ; Sugimura, Kazuro ; Yoshizako, Takeshi ; Kaji, Yasushi ; Wada, Akihiko</creator><creatorcontrib>Okizuka, Hiromi ; Sugimura, Kazuro ; Yoshizako, Takeshi ; Kaji, Yasushi ; Wada, Akihiko</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study is to compare the usefulness of conventional MR imaging and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed MR imaging for the depiction and staging of rectal carcinoma. Thirty‐two patients were prospectively evaluated by MR imaging using a 1.5‐T unit. Based on the results of a barium study and/or digital examination, a balloon catheter was inserted to the level of the lesion before examination. Both conventional T1‐ and T2‐weighted images and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images were obtained for all patients. The kappa statistics were performed for the evaluation of interobserver agreement and the McNemar test was performed for the analysis of staging accuracy. When only T1‐ and T2‐weighted images were used, 5 of 32 tumors were not detected and the extent of 18 of 32 tumors were unclear. However, when gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging was added, 24 of 32 tumors were well defined and only one tumor was not detected. In determining the depth of invasion, the staging accuracy was 72% for conventional imaging and 68% for all images combined. There was no significant difference between with gadopentetate dimeglumine fat‐suppressed imaging and conventional imaging (P &gt; .05). Use of gadopentetate dimeglumine (fat‐suppressed imaging) resulted in overestimation of muscular invasion, peri‐rectal fat invasion, and adjacent organ invasion in 12 patients, whereas nine patients were overestimated without the use of gadopentetate dimeglumine. In the detection of metastatic lymph nodes, gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging also was not useful. Tumor detection was excellent using gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed images. However, the accuracy of staging was not improved by obtaining such images.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-1807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2586</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880060309</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8724412</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Baltimore: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Adipose Tissue - pathology ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biopsy ; Colon ; Colon, MR studies ; Colon, neoplasms ; Contrast Media ; Drug Combinations ; Female ; Gadolinium DTPA ; Humans ; Image Enhancement - instrumentation ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation ; Lymph Nodes - pathology ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation ; Male ; Meglumine ; Middle Aged ; MR studies ; Neoplasm Invasiveness ; Neoplasm Staging ; neoplasms ; Organometallic Compounds ; Pentetic Acid - analogs &amp; derivatives ; Prospective Studies ; Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Rectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Rectum - pathology ; Rectum MR studies ; Rectum neoplasms</subject><ispartof>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 1996-05, Vol.6 (3), p.465-471</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc., A Wiley Company</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4489-c2edc25692837d63411557c3bedc35ae5ee24c8dd0dc30587613f8babfa793643</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4489-c2edc25692837d63411557c3bedc35ae5ee24c8dd0dc30587613f8babfa793643</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmri.1880060309$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmri.1880060309$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8724412$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Okizuka, Hiromi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimura, Kazuro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshizako, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaji, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wada, Akihiko</creatorcontrib><title>Rectal carcinoma: Prospective comparison of conventional and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat-suppressed MR imaging</title><title>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</title><addtitle>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study is to compare the usefulness of conventional MR imaging and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed MR imaging for the depiction and staging of rectal carcinoma. Thirty‐two patients were prospectively evaluated by MR imaging using a 1.5‐T unit. Based on the results of a barium study and/or digital examination, a balloon catheter was inserted to the level of the lesion before examination. Both conventional T1‐ and T2‐weighted images and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images were obtained for all patients. The kappa statistics were performed for the evaluation of interobserver agreement and the McNemar test was performed for the analysis of staging accuracy. When only T1‐ and T2‐weighted images were used, 5 of 32 tumors were not detected and the extent of 18 of 32 tumors were unclear. However, when gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging was added, 24 of 32 tumors were well defined and only one tumor was not detected. In determining the depth of invasion, the staging accuracy was 72% for conventional imaging and 68% for all images combined. There was no significant difference between with gadopentetate dimeglumine fat‐suppressed imaging and conventional imaging (P &gt; .05). Use of gadopentetate dimeglumine (fat‐suppressed imaging) resulted in overestimation of muscular invasion, peri‐rectal fat invasion, and adjacent organ invasion in 12 patients, whereas nine patients were overestimated without the use of gadopentetate dimeglumine. In the detection of metastatic lymph nodes, gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging also was not useful. Tumor detection was excellent using gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed images. However, the accuracy of staging was not improved by obtaining such images.</description><subject>Adipose Tissue - pathology</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Colon</subject><subject>Colon, MR studies</subject><subject>Colon, neoplasms</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Drug Combinations</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gadolinium DTPA</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Enhancement - instrumentation</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - pathology</subject><subject>Lymphatic Metastasis</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Meglumine</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>MR studies</subject><subject>Neoplasm Invasiveness</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>neoplasms</subject><subject>Organometallic Compounds</subject><subject>Pentetic Acid - analogs &amp; derivatives</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Rectum - pathology</subject><subject>Rectum MR studies</subject><subject>Rectum neoplasms</subject><issn>1053-1807</issn><issn>1522-2586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUE1v1DAUtBColMKZE5JP3NL62w6cUAWlaFvQCsTR8tovi0vipHZS2H-Pq10VceL03sybGT0NQi8pOaWEsLObIcdTagwhinDSPkLHVDLWMGnU47oTyRtqiH6KnpVyQwhpWyGP0JHRTAjKjtFuDX52PfYu-5jGwb3BX_JYpsrGO8B-HCaXYxkTHruK0h2kOY6pOlwKeOvCOFUGZjcDDnGAbb8MMQGG9MMlDwF3bm7KMk0ZSqnwao3j4LYxbZ-jJ53rC7w4zBP07cP7r-cfm9Xni8vzd6vGC2HaxjMInknVMsN1UFxQKqX2fFNpLh1IACa8CYFUTKTRivLObNymc7rlSvAT9HqfO-XxdoEy2yEWD33vEoxLsdowoYgwVXi2F_paQMnQ2SnXX_POUmLvy7b3Zdu_ZVfHq0P0shkgPOgP7db72_39V-xh9784--lqfflPerN3xzLD7we3yz-t0lxL-_36wmp2zdmqXVnF_wAsQ54D</recordid><startdate>199605</startdate><enddate>199605</enddate><creator>Okizuka, Hiromi</creator><creator>Sugimura, Kazuro</creator><creator>Yoshizako, Takeshi</creator><creator>Kaji, Yasushi</creator><creator>Wada, Akihiko</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199605</creationdate><title>Rectal carcinoma: Prospective comparison of conventional and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat-suppressed MR imaging</title><author>Okizuka, Hiromi ; Sugimura, Kazuro ; Yoshizako, Takeshi ; Kaji, Yasushi ; Wada, Akihiko</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4489-c2edc25692837d63411557c3bedc35ae5ee24c8dd0dc30587613f8babfa793643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Adipose Tissue - pathology</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Colon</topic><topic>Colon, MR studies</topic><topic>Colon, neoplasms</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Drug Combinations</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gadolinium DTPA</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Enhancement - instrumentation</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - pathology</topic><topic>Lymphatic Metastasis</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Meglumine</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>MR studies</topic><topic>Neoplasm Invasiveness</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>neoplasms</topic><topic>Organometallic Compounds</topic><topic>Pentetic Acid - analogs &amp; derivatives</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Rectum - pathology</topic><topic>Rectum MR studies</topic><topic>Rectum neoplasms</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Okizuka, Hiromi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugimura, Kazuro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshizako, Takeshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaji, Yasushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wada, Akihiko</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Okizuka, Hiromi</au><au>Sugimura, Kazuro</au><au>Yoshizako, Takeshi</au><au>Kaji, Yasushi</au><au>Wada, Akihiko</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rectal carcinoma: Prospective comparison of conventional and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat-suppressed MR imaging</atitle><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle><addtitle>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging</addtitle><date>1996-05</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>465</spage><epage>471</epage><pages>465-471</pages><issn>1053-1807</issn><eissn>1522-2586</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study is to compare the usefulness of conventional MR imaging and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed MR imaging for the depiction and staging of rectal carcinoma. Thirty‐two patients were prospectively evaluated by MR imaging using a 1.5‐T unit. Based on the results of a barium study and/or digital examination, a balloon catheter was inserted to the level of the lesion before examination. Both conventional T1‐ and T2‐weighted images and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images were obtained for all patients. The kappa statistics were performed for the evaluation of interobserver agreement and the McNemar test was performed for the analysis of staging accuracy. When only T1‐ and T2‐weighted images were used, 5 of 32 tumors were not detected and the extent of 18 of 32 tumors were unclear. However, when gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging was added, 24 of 32 tumors were well defined and only one tumor was not detected. In determining the depth of invasion, the staging accuracy was 72% for conventional imaging and 68% for all images combined. There was no significant difference between with gadopentetate dimeglumine fat‐suppressed imaging and conventional imaging (P &gt; .05). Use of gadopentetate dimeglumine (fat‐suppressed imaging) resulted in overestimation of muscular invasion, peri‐rectal fat invasion, and adjacent organ invasion in 12 patients, whereas nine patients were overestimated without the use of gadopentetate dimeglumine. In the detection of metastatic lymph nodes, gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed imaging also was not useful. Tumor detection was excellent using gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat‐suppressed images. However, the accuracy of staging was not improved by obtaining such images.</abstract><cop>Baltimore</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>8724412</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmri.1880060309</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-1807
ispartof Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 1996-05, Vol.6 (3), p.465-471
issn 1053-1807
1522-2586
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78246048
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Adipose Tissue - pathology
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy
Colon
Colon, MR studies
Colon, neoplasms
Contrast Media
Drug Combinations
Female
Gadolinium DTPA
Humans
Image Enhancement - instrumentation
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - instrumentation
Lymph Nodes - pathology
Lymphatic Metastasis
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - instrumentation
Male
Meglumine
Middle Aged
MR studies
Neoplasm Invasiveness
Neoplasm Staging
neoplasms
Organometallic Compounds
Pentetic Acid - analogs & derivatives
Prospective Studies
Rectal Neoplasms - diagnosis
Rectal Neoplasms - pathology
Rectum - pathology
Rectum MR studies
Rectum neoplasms
title Rectal carcinoma: Prospective comparison of conventional and gadopentetate dimeglumine enhanced fat-suppressed MR imaging
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T12%3A39%3A32IST&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=Rectal%20carcinoma:%20Prospective%20comparison%20of%20conventional%20and%20gadopentetate%20dimeglumine%20enhanced%20fat-suppressed%20MR%20imaging&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.au=Okizuka,%20Hiromi&rft.date=1996-05&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=465&rft.epage=471&rft.pages=465-471&rft.issn=1053-1807&rft.eissn=1522-2586&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmri.1880060309&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78246048%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=78246048&rft_id=info:pmid/8724412&rfr_iscdi=true