Literature DB >> 16741717

The diagnostic value of multiplanar reconstruction on MDCT colonography for the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer.

Kwang Nam Jin1, Jeong Min Lee, Se Hyung Kim, Kyung-Sook Shin, Jae Young Lee, Joon Koo Han, Byung Ihn Choi.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images can improve the accuracy of MDCT-based colorectal cancer preoperative staging by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Fifty-five patients with colorectal cancer underwent contrast-enhanced CT colonography using an 8- or 16-row scanner. Two separate interval reviews of the axial MDCT datasets with/without MPR images (coronal and sagittal) were performed independently by two radiologists blinded to both the colonoscopic and histopathologic results. At each review session, the radiologists were asked to determine the colorectal cancer TNM stage within the context of differentiating < or =T3 from T4, N0 from > or =N1 and M0 from M1 using a five-point confidence scale. The radiologists' performance for staging the colorectal cancer using axial CT datasets with/without MPR images was evaluated using ROC analysis. Sensitivities, specificities and interobserver agreement were assessed. When MPR images were added, significant improvement was achieved by both radiologists for differentiating N0 from > or =N1 in terms of both A(Z) (0.651 to 0.769; 0.573 to 0.713) and specificity (26.7 to 69.2%; 23.1 to 76.9%) (P<0.05). For T staging, ROC analysis failed to show a significant improvement in terms of differentiating < or =T3 from T4 for either radiologist (P>0.05), but a significant improvement in the specificity (70 to 90%; 80 to 92%) was achieved by one radiologist (P<0.05). In terms of the M staging, a significant improvement in the Az (0.844 to 0.996) was observed for the combined interpretation of the axial and MPR images by one radiologist (P<0.05). Furthermore, substantial or almost perfect interobserver agreement was achieved for all TNM stagings for the combined interpretations (kappa=0.641-0.866), whereas only fair to substantial agreement was achieved for the axial images alone (kappa=0.337-0.707). In conclusion, the combined interpretation of the axial and MPR MDCT images significantly improved the local staging of colorectal cancer compared with assessments based on axial images alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16741717     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0316-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  29 in total

1.  Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Staging of rectal cancer: diagnostic potential of multiplanar reconstructions with MDCT.

Authors:  C Kulinna; R Eibel; W Matzek; H Bonel; D Aust; T Strauss; M Reiser; J Scheidler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy.

Authors:  S Gryspeerdt; P Lefere; M Herman; R Deman; L Rutgeerts; G Ghillebert; F Baert; M Baekelandt; B Van Holsbeeck
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-09       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  CT colonography: comparison of a colon dissection display versus 3D endoluminal view for the detection of polyps.

Authors:  Markus S Juchems; Thorsten R Fleiter; Sandra Pauls; Stefan A Schmidt; Hans-Jürgen Brambs; Andrik J Aschoff
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  CT colonography using 16-MDCT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Dong Jin Chung; Don Jin Chung; Kyu Chan Huh; Won Jun Choi; Jae Kyun Kim
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Preoperative and postoperative CT staging of rectosigmoid carcinoma.

Authors:  W M Thompson; R A Halvorsen; W L Foster; L Roberts; R Gibbons
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Extracolonic findings in patients undergoing abdomino-pelvic CT for suspected colorectal carcinoma in the frail and disabled patient.

Authors:  C S Ng; T C Doyle; H M Courtney; G A Campbell; A H Freeman; A K Dixon
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 8.  Overview of preoperative and postoperative therapy for colorectal cancer: the European and United States perspectives.

Authors:  Ian Chau; Samuel Chan; David Cunningham
Journal:  Clin Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.481

9.  Preoperative T and N staging of colorectal cancer: accuracy of contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT colonography--initial experience.

Authors:  Antonella Filippone; Roberta Ambrosini; Maurizio Fuschi; Tiziana Marinelli; Domenico Genovesi; Lorenzo Bonomo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-02-27       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Laparoscopic colon resection for colon cancer.

Authors:  Jennefer A Kieran; Myriam J Curet
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.192

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  CT colonography in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer: emphasis on pre- and post-surgical evaluation.

Authors:  Nurhee Hong; Seong Ho Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Role of preoperative CT colonography in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Massimo Falchini; Antonio Taddei; Mario Mascalchi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Computer-aided detection in CT colonography: initial clinical experience using a prototype system.

Authors:  A Graser; F T Kolligs; T Mang; C Schaefer; S Geisbüsch; M F Reiser; C R Becker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-16       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  CT findings of gallbladder metastases: emphasis on differences according to primary tumors.

Authors:  Won Seok Choi; Se Hyung Kim; Eun Sun Lee; Kyoung-Bun Lee; Won Jae Yoon; Cheong-Il Shin; Joon Koo Han
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.500

5.  The effectiveness of FOBT vs. FIT: A meta-analysis on colorectal cancer screening test.

Authors:  Maryam Mousavinezhad; Reza Majdzadeh; Ali Akbari Sari; Alireza Delavari; Farideh Mohtasham
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2016-05-09

6.  Incomplete colonoscopy in patients with occlusive colorectal cancer: usefulness of CT colonography according to tumor location.

Authors:  Joo Hee Kim; Won Ho Kim; Tae Il Kim; Nam Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee; Myeong-Jin Kim; Ki Whang Kim
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 2.759

7.  CT volumetric measurement of colorectal cancer helps predict tumor staging and prognosis.

Authors:  Jin Young Park; Se Hyung Kim; Sang Min Lee; Jeong Sub Lee; Joon Koo Han
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Factors associated with pericolic fat stranding of colon cancer on computed tomography colonography.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Morimoto; Takayuki Yamada; Kunihisa Miyakawa; Yasuo Nakajima
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2018-02-19
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.