OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in combination with T(2)-weighted imaging (T(2)WI) for the detection of rectal cancer as compared with T(2)WI alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients with rectal cancer and 20 without rectal cancer underwent DWI with parallel imaging and T(2)WI on a 1.5 T scanner. Images were independently reviewed by two readers blinded to the results to determine the detectability of rectal cancer. The detectability of T(2)W imaging without and with DW imaging was assessed by means of receiver operating characteristic analysis. The interobserver agreement between the two readers was calculated with kappa statistics. RESULTS: The ROC analysis showed that each of two readers achieved more accurate results with T(2)W imaging combined with DW imaging than with T(2)W imaging alone significantly. The A(z) values for the two readers for each T(2)WI and T(2)WI combined with DWI were 0.918 versus 0.991 (p=0.0494), 0.934 versus 0.997 (p=0.0475), respectively. The values of kappa were 0.934 for T(2)WI and 0.948 for T(2)WI combined with DWI between the two readers. CONCLUSION: The addition of DW imaging to conventional T(2)W imaging provides better detection of rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in combination with T(2)-weighted imaging (T(2)WI) for the detection of rectal cancer as compared with T(2)WI alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients with rectal cancer and 20 without rectal cancer underwent DWI with parallel imaging and T(2)WI on a 1.5 T scanner. Images were independently reviewed by two readers blinded to the results to determine the detectability of rectal cancer. The detectability of T(2)W imaging without and with DW imaging was assessed by means of receiver operating characteristic analysis. The interobserver agreement between the two readers was calculated with kappa statistics. RESULTS: The ROC analysis showed that each of two readers achieved more accurate results with T(2)W imaging combined with DW imaging than with T(2)W imaging alone significantly. The A(z) values for the two readers for each T(2)WI and T(2)WI combined with DWI were 0.918 versus 0.991 (p=0.0494), 0.934 versus 0.997 (p=0.0475), respectively. The values of kappa were 0.934 for T(2)WI and 0.948 for T(2)WI combined with DWI between the two readers. CONCLUSION: The addition of DW imaging to conventional T(2)W imaging provides better detection of rectal cancer.