Jae Seok Bae1,2, Se Hyung Kim3,4, Bo Yun Hur5, Won Chang6, Juil Park1,2, Hye Eun Park7, Jung Ho Kim7, Hyo-Jin Kang1,2, Mi Hye Yu8, Joon Koo Han1,2,9. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. shkim7071@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. shkim7071@gmail.com. 5. Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea. 6. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea. 7. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 8. Department of Radiology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 9. Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted in order to determine the prognostic value of MRI for extramural venous invasion (EMVI) in rectal cancer compared to pathology and to assess the diagnostic performance of multireaders. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 222 patients (M:F = 148:74; mean age ± standard deviation, 61.5 ± 12 years) with histopathologically proven rectal cancers who underwent preoperative MRI between 2007 and 2016. Among them, 74 patients had positive EMVI on pathology (pEMVI) and 148 patients had negative pEMVI. Three radiologists with 7 (reviewer 1), 3 (reviewer 2), and 1 (reviewer 3) year of experience in rectal MR imaging determined the presence of EMVI on MRI (mrEMVI) using a 5-point grading system. Using histopathologic results as the reference standard, radiologists' performances were analyzed and compared with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. For assessment of interobserver variation, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used. Lastly, Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazard models were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was highest in reviewer 1 (0.829), followed by reviewer 2 (0.798) and reviewer 3 (0.658). Differences in AUCs between reviewer 1 or 2 and reviewer 3 were statistically significant (p < 0.001). ICC was substantial between reviewers 1 and 2. Overall survival (OS) was significantly different according to the positive circumferential resection margin, adjuvant treatment, and the presence of mrEMVI, but not by the presence of pEMVI. CONCLUSIONS: For experienced radiologists, the diagnostic performance of mrEMVI was good, resulting in better prediction of OS than with pEMVI, with substantial interobserver agreement. KEY POINTS: • When read by experienced radiologists, MR can provide reliable diagnostic performance in assessing EMVI for patients with rectal cancer. • Positive mrEMVI is an adverse prognostic factor of overall survival and may influence the clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted in order to determine the prognostic value of MRI for extramural venous invasion (EMVI) in rectal cancer compared to pathology and to assess the diagnostic performance of multireaders. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 222 patients (M:F = 148:74; mean age ± standard deviation, 61.5 ± 12 years) with histopathologically proven rectal cancers who underwent preoperative MRI between 2007 and 2016. Among them, 74 patients had positive EMVI on pathology (pEMVI) and 148 patients had negative pEMVI. Three radiologists with 7 (reviewer 1), 3 (reviewer 2), and 1 (reviewer 3) year of experience in rectal MR imaging determined the presence of EMVI on MRI (mrEMVI) using a 5-point grading system. Using histopathologic results as the reference standard, radiologists' performances were analyzed and compared with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. For assessment of interobserver variation, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used. Lastly, Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazard models were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was highest in reviewer 1 (0.829), followed by reviewer 2 (0.798) and reviewer 3 (0.658). Differences in AUCs between reviewer 1 or 2 and reviewer 3 were statistically significant (p < 0.001). ICC was substantial between reviewers 1 and 2. Overall survival (OS) was significantly different according to the positive circumferential resection margin, adjuvant treatment, and the presence of mrEMVI, but not by the presence of pEMVI. CONCLUSIONS: For experienced radiologists, the diagnostic performance of mrEMVI was good, resulting in better prediction of OS than with pEMVI, with substantial interobserver agreement. KEY POINTS: • When read by experienced radiologists, MR can provide reliable diagnostic performance in assessing EMVI for patients with rectal cancer. • Positive mrEMVI is an adverse prognostic factor of overall survival and may influence the clinical decision-making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blood vessels; Chemoradiotherapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prognosis; Rectal neoplasms
Authors: Seung Ho Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Min Woo Lee; Gi Hyeon Kim; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: E D Courtney; N J West; C Kaur; J Ho; B Kalber; R Hagger; C Finlayson; R J Leicester Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2008-05-03 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Akitoshi Inoue; Shannon P Sheedy; Jay P Heiken; Payam Mohammadinejad; Rondell P Graham; Hee Eun Lee; Scott R Kelley; Stephanie L Hansel; David H Bruining; Jeff L Fidler; Joel G Fletcher Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-08-09