Cargando…

The Blood Oxygenation T(2)(*) Values of Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinomas as Measured by 3T Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Association with Tumor Stage

OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between the blood oxygenation T(2)(*) values of resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCCs) and tumor stages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 48 ESCC patients and 20 healthy participants who had undergone esophageal T(2)(*)-weighted imaging...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tang, Yu-lian, Zhang, Xiao-ming, Yang, Zhi-gang, Huang, Yu-cheng, Chen, Tian-wu, Chen, Yan-li, Chen, Fan, Zeng, Nan-lin, Li, Rui, Hu, Jiani
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5447643/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28670162
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.674
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between the blood oxygenation T(2)(*) values of resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCCs) and tumor stages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 48 ESCC patients and 20 healthy participants who had undergone esophageal T(2)(*)-weighted imaging to obtain T(2)(*) values of the tumors and normal esophagi. ESCC patients underwent surgical resections less than one week after imaging. Statistical analyses were performed to identify the association between T(2)(*) values of ESCCs and tumor stages. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests revealed that the T(2)(*) value could differentiate stage T1 ESCCs (17.7 ± 3.3 ms) from stage T2 and T3 tumors (24.6 ± 2.7 ms and 27.8 ± 5.6 ms, respectively; all p(s) < 0.001). Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis showed the suitable cutoff T(2)(*) value of 21.3 ms for either differentiation. The former statistical tests demonstrated that the T(2)(*) value could not differentiate between stages T2 and T3 (24.6 ± 2.7 ms vs. 27.8 ± 5.6 ms, respectively, p > 0.05) or between N stages (N1 vs. N2 vs. N3: 24.7 ± 6.9 ms vs. 25.4 ± 4.5 ms vs. 26.8 ± 3.9 ms, respectively; all p(s) > 0.05). The former tests illustrated that the T(2)(*) value could differentiate anatomic stages I and II (18.8 ± 4.8 ms and 26.9 ± 5.9 ms, respectively) or stages I and III (27.3 ± 3.6 ms). ROC analysis depicted the same cutoff T(2)(*) value of 21.3 ms for either differentiation. In addition, the Student's t test revealed that the T(2)(*) value could determine grouped T stages (T0 vs. T1–3: 17.0 ± 2.9 ms vs. 25.2 ± 6.2 ms; T0–1 vs. T2–3: 17.3 ± 3.0 ms vs. 27.1 ± 5.3 ms; and T0–2 vs. T3: 18.8 ± 4.2 ms vs. 27.8 ± 5.6 ms, all p(s) < 0.001). ROC analysis indicated that the T(2)(*) value could detect ESCCs (cutoff, 20 ms), and discriminate between stages T0–1 and T2–3 (cutoff, 21.3 ms) and between T0–2 and T3 (cutoff, 20.4 ms). CONCLUSION: The T(2)(*) value can be an additional quantitative indicator for detecting ESCC except for stage T1 cancer, and can preoperatively discriminate between some T stages and between anatomic stages of this tumor.