Literature DB >> 1847239

CT and MR imaging in staging non-small cell bronchogenic carcinoma: report of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group.

W R Webb1, C Gatsonis, E A Zerhouni, R T Heelan, G M Glazer, I R Francis, B J McNeil.   

Abstract

The accuracies of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in determining tumor classification and assessing mediastinal node metastases were compared in a prospective cooperative study of 170 patients with non-small cell bronchogenic carcinoma. The sensitivity of CT in distinguishing T3-T4 tumors from T0-T2 tumors was 63%; specificity was 84%. These values for MR imaging were not significantly different (56% and 80%). With receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, no difference existed between the accuracies of CT and MR imaging in diagnosis of bronchial involvement or chest wall invasion, but MR imaging was significantly more accurate than CT (P = .047) in diagnosis of mediastinal invasion. Lymph node sampling was performed in 155 patients (642 node stations). Cancerous nodes were found in 14% of stations in 21% of patients. There was no significant difference between the accuracies of CT and MR imaging in detecting mediastinal node metastases (N2 or N3); the sensitivities were 52% and 48%, respectively, and specificities were 69% and 64%. ROC analysis also showed no difference between CT and MR imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1847239     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.178.3.1847239

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  67 in total

1.  BTS guidelines: guidelines on the selection of patients with lung cancer for surgery.

Authors: 
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging bronchogenic carcinoma.

Authors:  R Manfredi; T Pirronti; L Bonomo; P Marano
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  1996 Sep-Dec       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Requirements for clinical PET: comparisons within Europe.

Authors:  Michael Bedford; Michael N Maisey
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Magnetic resonance imaging for staging of non-small-cell lung cancer-technical advances and unmet needs.

Authors:  Gregor Sommer; Bram Stieltjes
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  The usefulness of FDG positron emission tomography for the detection of mediastinal lymph node metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a comparative study with X-ray computed tomography.

Authors:  M Sasaki; Y Ichiya; Y Kuwabara; Y Akashi; T Yoshida; T Fukumura; S Murayama; T Ishida; K Sugio; K Masuda
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1996-07

Review 6.  Current role of positron emission tomography in thoracic oncology.

Authors:  V J Lowe; K S Naunheim
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 9.139

7.  High-resolution X-ray microtomography for the detection of lung tumors in living mice.

Authors:  Nora M De Clerck; Kris Meurrens; Horst Weiler; Dirk Van Dyck; Greet Van Houtte; Piter Terpstra; Andrei A Postnov
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.715

Review 8.  Staging of bronchogenic carcinoma.

Authors:  S J Herman
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  18F-FDG PET for the lymph node staging of non-small cell lung cancer in a tuberculosis-endemic country: is dual time point imaging worth the effort?

Authors:  Ruoh-Fang Yen; Ke-Cheng Chen; Jang-Ming Lee; Yeun-Chung Chang; Jane Wang; Mei-Fang Cheng; Yen-Wen Wu; Yung-Chie Lee
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-02-19       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  LingLing Pan; Yuan Han; XiaoGuang Sun; JianJun Liu; Huang Gang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.