PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (64-MDCT) in the T staging of gastric carcinoma in comparison with histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with an endoscopic diagnosis of gastric carcinoma underwent preoperative MR imaging and 64-MDCT, both of which were performed after i.v. injection of scopolamine and water distension of the stomach. In the MR imaging protocol, we acquired T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequences, true fast imaging steady-state free precession (true-FISP) and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) 3D sequences. Contrastenhanced CT scans were obtained in the arterial and venous phases. Two groups of radiologists independently reviewed the MR and 64-MDCT images. The results were compared with pathology findings. RESULTS: In the evaluation of T stage, 64-MDCT had 82.5% and MR imaging had 80% sensitivity. Accuracy of MR imaging was slightly higher than that of 64-MDCT in identifying T1 lesions (50% vs 37.5%), whereas the accuracy of 64-MDCT was higher in differentiating T2 lesions (81.2% vs 68.7%). The accuracy of MR imaging and 64-MDCT did not differ significantly in the evaluation of T3-T4 lesions (p>0.05). Understaging was observed in 20% of cases with MR imaging and in 17.5% with 64-MDCT. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging and 64-MDCT accuracy levels did not differ in advanced stages of disease, whereas MR imaging was superior in identifying early stages of gastric cancer and can be considered a valid alternative to MDCT in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (64-MDCT) in the T staging of gastric carcinoma in comparison with histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with an endoscopic diagnosis of gastric carcinoma underwent preoperative MR imaging and 64-MDCT, both of which were performed after i.v. injection of scopolamine and water distension of the stomach. In the MR imaging protocol, we acquired T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequences, true fast imaging steady-state free precession (true-FISP) and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) 3D sequences. Contrastenhanced CT scans were obtained in the arterial and venous phases. Two groups of radiologists independently reviewed the MR and 64-MDCT images. The results were compared with pathology findings. RESULTS: In the evaluation of T stage, 64-MDCT had 82.5% and MR imaging had 80% sensitivity. Accuracy of MR imaging was slightly higher than that of 64-MDCT in identifying T1 lesions (50% vs 37.5%), whereas the accuracy of 64-MDCT was higher in differentiating T2 lesions (81.2% vs 68.7%). The accuracy of MR imaging and 64-MDCT did not differ significantly in the evaluation of T3-T4 lesions (p>0.05). Understaging was observed in 20% of cases with MR imaging and in 17.5% with 64-MDCT. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging and 64-MDCT accuracy levels did not differ in advanced stages of disease, whereas MR imaging was superior in identifying early stages of gastric cancer and can be considered a valid alternative to MDCT in clinical practice.
Authors: Charles A McKenzie; Ernest N Yeh; Michael A Ohliger; Mark D Price; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: E J Nieveen van Dijkum; L T de Wit; O M van Delden; E A Rauws; J J van Lanschot; H Obertop; D J Gouma Journal: Cancer Date: 1997-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Elena Orsenigo; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Roberto Nicoletti; Luca Albarello; Alessandro Ambrosi; Annalaura Salerno; Antonio Esposito; Maria Chiara Petrone; Damiano Chiari; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Frank J Wessels; Marcel Verheij; Edwin P M Jansen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ahmet Erten; David Hall; Carl Hoh; Hop S Tran Cao; Sharmeela Kaushal; Sadik Esener; Robert M Hoffman; Michael Bouvet; James Chen; Santosh Kesari; Milan Makale Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.170