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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |