Doenja M J Lambregts1, Miriam M van Heeswijk2,3,4,5, Andrea Delli Pizzi6, Saskia G C van Elderen7, Luisa Andrade8, Nicky H G M Peters9, Peter A M Kint10, Margreet Osinga-de Jong9, Shandra Bipat11, Rik Ooms12, Max J Lahaye2, Monique Maas2, Geerard L Beets5,13, Frans C H Bakers3, Regina G H Beets-Tan2,5. 1. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.lambregts@nki.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Neuroscience and Imaging, Gabriele d'Annunzio University, SS. Annunziate Hospital, Chieti, Italy. 7. Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Radiology, Hospitais Da Universidade De Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 9. Zuyderland Medical Center, location Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Radiology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 12. Department of Radiology, Maxima Medical Centre, Eindhoven-Veldhoven, The Netherlands. 13. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish the most common image interpretation pitfalls for non-expert readers using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer and to explore the use of these pitfalls in an expert teaching setting. METHODS: Two independent non-expert readers (R1 and R2) scored the restaging DW MRI scans (b1,000 DWI, in conjunction with ADC maps and T2-W MRI scans for anatomical reference) in 100 patients for the likelihood of a complete response versus residual tumour using a five-point confidence score. The readers received expert feedback and the final response outcome for each case. The supervising expert documented any potential interpretation errors/pitfalls discussed for each case to identify the most common pitfalls. RESULTS: The most common pitfalls were the interpretation of low signal on the ADC map, small susceptibility artefacts, T2 shine-through effects, suboptimal sequence angulation and collapsed rectal wall. Diagnostic performance (area under the ROC curve) was 0.78 (R1) and 0.77 (R2) in the first 50 patients and 0.85 (R1) and 0.85 (R2) in the final 50 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Five main image interpretation pitfalls were identified and used for teaching and feedback. Both readers achieved a good diagnostic performance with an AUC of 0.85. KEY POINTS: • Fibrosis appears hypointense on an ADC map and should not be mistaken for tumour. • Susceptibility artefacts on rectal DWI are an important potential pitfall. • T2 shine-through on rectal DWI is an important potential pitfall. • These pitfalls are useful to teach non-experts how to interpret rectal DWI.
OBJECTIVES: To establish the most common image interpretation pitfalls for non-expert readers using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer and to explore the use of these pitfalls in an expert teaching setting. METHODS: Two independent non-expert readers (R1 and R2) scored the restaging DW MRI scans (b1,000 DWI, in conjunction with ADC maps and T2-W MRI scans for anatomical reference) in 100 patients for the likelihood of a complete response versus residual tumour using a five-point confidence score. The readers received expert feedback and the final response outcome for each case. The supervising expert documented any potential interpretation errors/pitfalls discussed for each case to identify the most common pitfalls. RESULTS: The most common pitfalls were the interpretation of low signal on the ADC map, small susceptibility artefacts, T2 shine-through effects, suboptimal sequence angulation and collapsed rectal wall. Diagnostic performance (area under the ROC curve) was 0.78 (R1) and 0.77 (R2) in the first 50 patients and 0.85 (R1) and 0.85 (R2) in the final 50 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Five main image interpretation pitfalls were identified and used for teaching and feedback. Both readers achieved a good diagnostic performance with an AUC of 0.85. KEY POINTS: • Fibrosis appears hypointense on an ADC map and should not be mistaken for tumour. • Susceptibility artefacts on rectal DWI are an important potential pitfall. • T2 shine-through on rectal DWI is an important potential pitfall. • These pitfalls are useful to teach non-experts how to interpret rectal DWI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemoradiotherapy; Diagnosis; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Rectal neoplasms
Authors: S Sassen; M de Booij; M Sosef; R Berendsen; G Lammering; R Clarijs; M Bakker; R Beets-Tan; F Warmerdam; R Vliegen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Luís Curvo-Semedo; Doenja M J Lambregts; Monique Maas; Thomas Thywissen; Rana T Mehsen; Guido Lammering; Geerard L Beets; Filipe Caseiro-Alves; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marije P van der Paardt; Marjolein B Zagers; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jaap Stoker; Shandra Bipat Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Lezoche; M Guerrieri; A M Paganini; G D'Ambrosio; M Baldarelli; G Lezoche; F Feliciotti; A De Sanctis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2005-05-04 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts; Monique Maas; Shandra Bipat; Brunella Barbaro; Filipe Caseiro-Alves; Luís Curvo-Semedo; Helen M Fenlon; Marc J Gollub; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Steve Halligan; Christine Hoeffel; Seung Ho Kim; Andrea Laghi; Andrea Maier; Søren R Rafaelsen; Jaap Stoker; Stuart A Taylor; Michael R Torkzad; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Milou H Martens; Monique Maas; Luc A Heijnen; Doenja M J Lambregts; Jeroen W A Leijtens; Laurents P S Stassen; Stephanie O Breukink; Christiaan Hoff; Eric J Belgers; Jarno Melenhorst; Rob Jansen; Jeroen Buijsen; Ton G M Hoofwijk; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Geerard L Beets Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Max J Lahaye; Luc A Heijnen; Milou H Martens; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robin Detering; Wernard A A Borstlap; Lisa Broeders; Linda Hermus; Corrie A M Marijnen; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Willem A Bemelman; Henderik L van Westreenen; Pieter J Tanis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Seong Ho Park; Seung Hyun Cho; Sang Hyun Choi; Jong Keon Jang; Min Ju Kim; Seung Ho Kim; Joon Seok Lim; Sung Kyoung Moon; Ji Hoon Park; Nieun Seo Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.500