Corey T Jensen1, Rafael A Vicens-Rodriguez2, Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak2, Patricia S Fox3, Silvana C Faria2, Ivan Carrion4, Aliya Qayyum2, Eric P Tamm2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Pickens Academic Tower, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA. cjensen@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Pickens Academic Tower, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1473, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 4. University Hospital Joan XXIII (Tarragona), Avda. Jaume Balmes, XX, X-X, Vilanova i la Geltru Barcelona, 08800, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the sensitivity of multidetector CT for the detection of peritoneal metastases between standard 2.5 mm axial imaging and maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study and waived the need to obtain patient consent. We retrospectively identified 36 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and peritoneal metastatic disease who underwent a pancreatic protocol CT examination of the abdomen and pelvis between January 2012 and January 2014. Three independent radiologists reviewed a randomized combination of standard axial (2.5 mm reconstructed thickness, 2.5 mm interval) and axial MIP reconstructions (6, 3 mm interval) over two sessions. Each reader recorded metastasis location in PACS. Subsequent consensus review by two radiologists determined the final number and size of metastases. RESULTS: The reviewers found 328 peritoneal implants in 36 patients. After accounting for the size, location, and number of lesions as well as multiple readers, a generalized estimating equations model showed that the statistical combination of MIP with standard technique significantly increased the odds of correctly identifying a lesion (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.86-2.51; p value < 0.0001) compared to standard technique alone. MIP reconstruction as a standalone technique was less sensitive compared to standard technique alone (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.65-0.99; p value = 0.0468). When compared to standard axial imaging, evaluation via MIP reconstructions resulted in the identification of an additional 50 (15%), 45 (14%), and 55 (17%) lesions by Readers 1-3, respectively. CONCLUSION: The axial 6 mm MIP series is complimentary in the CT evaluation of peritoneal metastases. MIP reconstruction evaluation identified a significant number of additional lesions, but is not adequate as a standalone technique for peritoneal cavity assessment.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate the sensitivity of multidetector CT for the detection of peritoneal metastases between standard 2.5 mm axial imaging and maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study and waived the need to obtain patient consent. We retrospectively identified 36 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and peritoneal metastatic disease who underwent a pancreatic protocol CT examination of the abdomen and pelvis between January 2012 and January 2014. Three independent radiologists reviewed a randomized combination of standard axial (2.5 mm reconstructed thickness, 2.5 mm interval) and axial MIP reconstructions (6, 3 mm interval) over two sessions. Each reader recorded metastasis location in PACS. Subsequent consensus review by two radiologists determined the final number and size of metastases. RESULTS: The reviewers found 328 peritoneal implants in 36 patients. After accounting for the size, location, and number of lesions as well as multiple readers, a generalized estimating equations model showed that the statistical combination of MIP with standard technique significantly increased the odds of correctly identifying a lesion (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.86-2.51; p value < 0.0001) compared to standard technique alone. MIP reconstruction as a standalone technique was less sensitive compared to standard technique alone (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.65-0.99; p value = 0.0468). When compared to standard axial imaging, evaluation via MIP reconstructions resulted in the identification of an additional 50 (15%), 45 (14%), and 55 (17%) lesions by Readers 1-3, respectively. CONCLUSION: The axial 6 mm MIP series is complimentary in the CT evaluation of peritoneal metastases. MIP reconstruction evaluation identified a significant number of additional lesions, but is not adequate as a standalone technique for peritoneal cavity assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT; MIP; Maximum intensity projection; Peritoneal evaluation; Peritoneal metastases
Authors: Adriana C Gamboa; Mohammad Y Zaidi; Rachel M Lee; Shelby Speegle; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Joseph Lipscomb; Jordan M Cloyd; Ahmed Ahmed; Travis Grotz; Jennifer Leiting; Keith Fournier; Andrew J Lee; Sean Dineen; Benjamin D Powers; Andrew M Lowy; Nikhil V Kotha; Callisia Clarke; T Clark Gamblin; Sameer H Patel; Tiffany C Lee; Laura Lambert; Ryan J Hendrix; Daniel E Abbott; Kara Vande Walle; Kelly Lafaro; Byrne Lee; Fabian M Johnston; Jonathan Greer; Maria C Russell; Charles A Staley; Shishir K Maithel Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Yun Jung Bae; Byung Se Choi; Kyung Mi Lee; Yeon Hong Yoon; Leonard Sunwoo; Cheolkyu Jung; Jae Hyoung Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 3.500