Solveig Kärk Abildtrup Larsen1, Vibeke Løgager2, Catharina Bylov3, Hanne Nellemann3, Mads Agerbæk4, Anne Birgitte Als4, Erik Morre Pedersen3. 1. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. solveig.larsen@auh.rm.dk. 2. Department of Radiology, Herlev Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. 3. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. 4. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Concerns of imaging-related radiation exposure in young patients with high survival rates have increased the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in testicular cancer (TC) stage I. However, computed tomography (CT) is still preferred for metastatic TC. The purpose of this study was to compare whole-body MRI incl. diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) with contrast-enhanced, thoracoabdominal CT in metastatic TC. METHODS: A prospective, non-inferiority study of 84 consecutive patients (median age 33 years) with newly diagnosed metastatic TC (February 2018-January 2021). Patients had both MRI and CT before and after treatment. Anonymised images were reviewed by experienced radiologists. Lesion malignancy was evaluated on a Likert scale (1 benign-4 malignant). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated on patient and lesion level. The primary outcome was demonstrating non-inferiority regarding sensitivity of MRI compared to CT. The non-inferiority margin was set at 5%. ROC curves and interobserver agreement were calculated. RESULTS: On patient level, MRI had 98% sensitivity and 75% specificity compared to CT. On lesion level within each modality, MRI had 99% sensitivity and 78% specificity, whereas CT had 98% sensitivity and 88% specificity. MRI sensitivity was non-inferior to CT (difference 0.57% (95% CI - 1.4-2.5%)). The interobserver agreement was substantial between CT and MRI. CONCLUSION: MRI with DWIBS was non-inferior to contrast-enhanced CT in detecting metastatic TC disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03436901, finished July 1st 2021.
PURPOSE: Concerns of imaging-related radiation exposure in young patients with high survival rates have increased the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in testicular cancer (TC) stage I. However, computed tomography (CT) is still preferred for metastatic TC. The purpose of this study was to compare whole-body MRI incl. diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) with contrast-enhanced, thoracoabdominal CT in metastatic TC. METHODS: A prospective, non-inferiority study of 84 consecutive patients (median age 33 years) with newly diagnosed metastatic TC (February 2018-January 2021). Patients had both MRI and CT before and after treatment. Anonymised images were reviewed by experienced radiologists. Lesion malignancy was evaluated on a Likert scale (1 benign-4 malignant). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated on patient and lesion level. The primary outcome was demonstrating non-inferiority regarding sensitivity of MRI compared to CT. The non-inferiority margin was set at 5%. ROC curves and interobserver agreement were calculated. RESULTS: On patient level, MRI had 98% sensitivity and 75% specificity compared to CT. On lesion level within each modality, MRI had 99% sensitivity and 78% specificity, whereas CT had 98% sensitivity and 88% specificity. MRI sensitivity was non-inferior to CT (difference 0.57% (95% CI - 1.4-2.5%)). The interobserver agreement was substantial between CT and MRI. CONCLUSION: MRI with DWIBS was non-inferior to contrast-enhanced CT in detecting metastatic TC disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03436901, finished July 1st 2021.
Authors: Kim Sivesgaard; Lars P Larsen; Michael Sørensen; Stine Kramer; Sven Schlander; Nerijus Amanavicius; Frank V Mortensen; Erik M Pedersen Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Phillip M Pierorazio; Joseph G Cheaib; Giorgia Tema; Hiten D Patel; Mohit Gupta; Ritu Sharma; Allen Zhang; Eric B Bass Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Pari V Pandharipande; Jonathan D Eisenberg; Richard J Lee; Michael E Gilmore; Ekin A Turan; Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Bob Liu; Chung Yin Kong; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anna C Pfannenberg; Karin Oechsle; Carsten Bokemeyer; Christian Kollmannsberger; Bernhard M Dohmen; Roland Bares; Jörg T Hartmann; Reinhard Vonthein; Claus D Claussen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2004-01-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Maria G Kier; Merete K Hansen; Jakob Lauritsen; Mette S Mortensen; Mikkel Bandak; Mads Agerbaek; Niels V Holm; Susanne O Dalton; Klaus K Andersen; Christoffer Johansen; Gedske Daugaard Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777