Cargando…

Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for evaluating the resectability in patients with extrah...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yoo, Jeongin, Lee, Jeong Min, Kang, Hyo-Jin, Bae, Jae Seok, Jeon, Sun Kyung, Yoon, Jeong Hee
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10550738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37793669
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2023.0368
_version_ 1785115614037147648
author Yoo, Jeongin
Lee, Jeong Min
Kang, Hyo-Jin
Bae, Jae Seok
Jeon, Sun Kyung
Yoon, Jeong Hee
author_facet Yoo, Jeongin
Lee, Jeong Min
Kang, Hyo-Jin
Bae, Jae Seok
Jeon, Sun Kyung
Yoon, Jeong Hee
author_sort Yoo, Jeongin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for evaluating the resectability in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included treatment-naïve patients with pathologically confirmed eCCA, who underwent both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP using extracellular contrast media between January 2015 and December 2020. Among the 214 patients (146 males; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 9 years) included, 121 (56.5%) had perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. R0 resection was achieved in 108 of the 153 (70.6%) patients who underwent curative-intent surgery. Four fellowship-trained radiologists independently reviewed the findings of both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP to assess the local tumor extent and distant metastasis for determining resectability. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were compared using clinical, surgical, and pathological findings as reference standards. The interobserver agreement of resectability was evaluated using Fleiss kappa (κ). RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP in the pooled AUC (0.753 vs. 0.767), sensitivity (84.7% [366/432] vs. 90.3% [390/432]), and specificity (52.6% [223/424] vs. 51.4% [218/424]) (P > 0.05 for all). The AUC for determining resectability was higher when CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were reviewed together than when CECT was reviewed alone in patients with discrepancies between the imaging modalities or with indeterminate resectability (0.798 [0.754–0.841] vs. 0.753 [0.697–0.808], P = 0.014). The interobserver agreement for overall resectability was fair for both CECT (κ = 0.323) and CE-MRI with MRCP (κ = 0.320), without a significant difference (P = 0.884). CONCLUSION: CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP showed no significant differences in the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement in determining the resectability in patients with eCCA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10550738
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher The Korean Society of Radiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105507382023-10-06 Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Yoo, Jeongin Lee, Jeong Min Kang, Hyo-Jin Bae, Jae Seok Jeon, Sun Kyung Yoon, Jeong Hee Korean J Radiol Gastrointestinal Imaging OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for evaluating the resectability in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included treatment-naïve patients with pathologically confirmed eCCA, who underwent both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP using extracellular contrast media between January 2015 and December 2020. Among the 214 patients (146 males; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 9 years) included, 121 (56.5%) had perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. R0 resection was achieved in 108 of the 153 (70.6%) patients who underwent curative-intent surgery. Four fellowship-trained radiologists independently reviewed the findings of both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP to assess the local tumor extent and distant metastasis for determining resectability. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were compared using clinical, surgical, and pathological findings as reference standards. The interobserver agreement of resectability was evaluated using Fleiss kappa (κ). RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP in the pooled AUC (0.753 vs. 0.767), sensitivity (84.7% [366/432] vs. 90.3% [390/432]), and specificity (52.6% [223/424] vs. 51.4% [218/424]) (P > 0.05 for all). The AUC for determining resectability was higher when CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were reviewed together than when CECT was reviewed alone in patients with discrepancies between the imaging modalities or with indeterminate resectability (0.798 [0.754–0.841] vs. 0.753 [0.697–0.808], P = 0.014). The interobserver agreement for overall resectability was fair for both CECT (κ = 0.323) and CE-MRI with MRCP (κ = 0.320), without a significant difference (P = 0.884). CONCLUSION: CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP showed no significant differences in the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement in determining the resectability in patients with eCCA. The Korean Society of Radiology 2023-10 2023-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10550738/ /pubmed/37793669 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2023.0368 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Korean Society of Radiology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Gastrointestinal Imaging
Yoo, Jeongin
Lee, Jeong Min
Kang, Hyo-Jin
Bae, Jae Seok
Jeon, Sun Kyung
Yoon, Jeong Hee
Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
title Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
title_full Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
title_fullStr Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
title_short Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
title_sort comparison between contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for resectability assessment in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
topic Gastrointestinal Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10550738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37793669
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2023.0368
work_keys_str_mv AT yoojeongin comparisonbetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyandcontrastenhancedmagneticresonanceimagingwithmagneticresonancecholangiopancreatographyforresectabilityassessmentinextrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma
AT leejeongmin comparisonbetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyandcontrastenhancedmagneticresonanceimagingwithmagneticresonancecholangiopancreatographyforresectabilityassessmentinextrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma
AT kanghyojin comparisonbetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyandcontrastenhancedmagneticresonanceimagingwithmagneticresonancecholangiopancreatographyforresectabilityassessmentinextrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma
AT baejaeseok comparisonbetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyandcontrastenhancedmagneticresonanceimagingwithmagneticresonancecholangiopancreatographyforresectabilityassessmentinextrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma
AT jeonsunkyung comparisonbetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyandcontrastenhancedmagneticresonanceimagingwithmagneticresonancecholangiopancreatographyforresectabilityassessmentinextrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma
AT yoonjeonghee comparisonbetweencontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyandcontrastenhancedmagneticresonanceimagingwithmagneticresonancecholangiopancreatographyforresectabilityassessmentinextrahepaticcholangiocarcinoma