3T弥散加权MRI与CECT检测卵巢癌及卵巢癌复发的价值比较

Härmä Kirsi, Sipola Petri J, Vainio Pauli, Pelkonen Outi, Rautiainen Suvi, Anttila Maarit, R. Vanninen
{"title":"3T弥散加权MRI与CECT检测卵巢癌及卵巢癌复发的价值比较","authors":"Härmä Kirsi, Sipola Petri J, Vainio Pauli, Pelkonen Outi, Rautiainen Suvi, Anttila Maarit, R. Vanninen","doi":"10.33425/2768-4598.1006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To investigate the value of 3T diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) compared to contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT), in the preoperative staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer (OC) or with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer (ROC). Materials and methods: Thirty-two women (mean age 65 ± 14) with suspected (n = 23) or recurrent (n = 9) ovarian cancer were included prospectively in a single center study. CECT and abdominal 3T DW-MRI were performed. Both methods were used to independently score the presence of 1) ovarian tumor, 2) peritoneal or omental carcinomatosis, 3) pathological lymph nodes (LN), along with 4) liver parenchymal, 5) liver capsular, 6) diaphragmatic, and 7) extra-abdominal metastases. Findings were scored as: 0=benign, 1=suspicious for malignancy, or 2=definitely malignant. In addition, the lowest ADC values were measured in existing primary tumors. The extent of disease burden and correlation to histopathological findings were analyzed. Results: The mean disease score was higher in DW-MRI than in CT (4.9 ± 2.6 vs. 3.5 ± 2.2, P < 0.001). Compared to CT, DW-MRI depicted more LN (P = 0.001) and diaphragmatic (P = 0.024) lesions. The lowest ADC values were significantly lower in malignant tumors (n = 18) than in benign tumors (n = 5) (0.640 x10-3mm2 /s ± 159 vs. 0.992 x10-3mm2 /s ± 218, P = 0.002). Conclusion: The results of our prospective single center study show incremental value of abdominal 3T DW-MRI in comparison with CECT, especially in detecting diaphragmatic and peritoneal ovarian cancer metastases, excluding lymph nodal metastases and in differentiating malignant adnexal tumors from benign.","PeriodicalId":371381,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Trials","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value of 3T diffusion weighted MRI in comparison with CECT in detection of ovarian cancer and ovarian cancer recurrence\",\"authors\":\"Härmä Kirsi, Sipola Petri J, Vainio Pauli, Pelkonen Outi, Rautiainen Suvi, Anttila Maarit, R. Vanninen\",\"doi\":\"10.33425/2768-4598.1006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To investigate the value of 3T diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) compared to contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT), in the preoperative staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer (OC) or with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer (ROC). Materials and methods: Thirty-two women (mean age 65 ± 14) with suspected (n = 23) or recurrent (n = 9) ovarian cancer were included prospectively in a single center study. CECT and abdominal 3T DW-MRI were performed. Both methods were used to independently score the presence of 1) ovarian tumor, 2) peritoneal or omental carcinomatosis, 3) pathological lymph nodes (LN), along with 4) liver parenchymal, 5) liver capsular, 6) diaphragmatic, and 7) extra-abdominal metastases. Findings were scored as: 0=benign, 1=suspicious for malignancy, or 2=definitely malignant. In addition, the lowest ADC values were measured in existing primary tumors. The extent of disease burden and correlation to histopathological findings were analyzed. Results: The mean disease score was higher in DW-MRI than in CT (4.9 ± 2.6 vs. 3.5 ± 2.2, P < 0.001). Compared to CT, DW-MRI depicted more LN (P = 0.001) and diaphragmatic (P = 0.024) lesions. The lowest ADC values were significantly lower in malignant tumors (n = 18) than in benign tumors (n = 5) (0.640 x10-3mm2 /s ± 159 vs. 0.992 x10-3mm2 /s ± 218, P = 0.002). Conclusion: The results of our prospective single center study show incremental value of abdominal 3T DW-MRI in comparison with CECT, especially in detecting diaphragmatic and peritoneal ovarian cancer metastases, excluding lymph nodal metastases and in differentiating malignant adnexal tumors from benign.\",\"PeriodicalId\":371381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\"107 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33425/2768-4598.1006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33425/2768-4598.1006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨3T扩散加权磁共振成像(DW-MRI)与对比增强计算机断层扫描(CECT)在疑似卵巢癌(OC)或疑似卵巢癌复发(ROC)患者术前分期中的价值。材料和方法:32名疑似(n = 23)或复发(n = 9)卵巢癌的女性(平均年龄65±14岁)在单中心研究中前瞻性纳入。行CECT及腹部3T DW-MRI检查。这两种方法分别用于评估1)卵巢肿瘤,2)腹膜或大网膜癌,3)病理性淋巴结(LN),以及4)肝实质,5)肝包膜,6)膈肌和7)腹外转移的存在。结果评分为:0=良性,1=可疑恶性,2=绝对恶性。此外,在现有的原发肿瘤中测量的ADC值最低。分析疾病负担程度及其与组织病理学结果的相关性。结果:DW-MRI的平均疾病评分高于CT(4.9±2.6比3.5±2.2,P < 0.001)。与CT相比,DW-MRI显示更多LN (P = 0.001)和膈肌(P = 0.024)病变。恶性肿瘤(n = 18)的最低ADC值明显低于良性肿瘤(n = 5) (0.640 x10-3mm2 /s±159∶0.992 x10-3mm2 /s±218,P = 0.002)。结论:我们的前瞻性单中心研究结果显示,腹部3T DW-MRI与CECT相比具有更高的价值,特别是在检测膈膜和腹膜卵巢癌转移,排除淋巴结转移以及鉴别良性和恶性附件肿瘤方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Value of 3T diffusion weighted MRI in comparison with CECT in detection of ovarian cancer and ovarian cancer recurrence
Purpose: To investigate the value of 3T diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) compared to contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT), in the preoperative staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer (OC) or with suspected recurrence of ovarian cancer (ROC). Materials and methods: Thirty-two women (mean age 65 ± 14) with suspected (n = 23) or recurrent (n = 9) ovarian cancer were included prospectively in a single center study. CECT and abdominal 3T DW-MRI were performed. Both methods were used to independently score the presence of 1) ovarian tumor, 2) peritoneal or omental carcinomatosis, 3) pathological lymph nodes (LN), along with 4) liver parenchymal, 5) liver capsular, 6) diaphragmatic, and 7) extra-abdominal metastases. Findings were scored as: 0=benign, 1=suspicious for malignancy, or 2=definitely malignant. In addition, the lowest ADC values were measured in existing primary tumors. The extent of disease burden and correlation to histopathological findings were analyzed. Results: The mean disease score was higher in DW-MRI than in CT (4.9 ± 2.6 vs. 3.5 ± 2.2, P < 0.001). Compared to CT, DW-MRI depicted more LN (P = 0.001) and diaphragmatic (P = 0.024) lesions. The lowest ADC values were significantly lower in malignant tumors (n = 18) than in benign tumors (n = 5) (0.640 x10-3mm2 /s ± 159 vs. 0.992 x10-3mm2 /s ± 218, P = 0.002). Conclusion: The results of our prospective single center study show incremental value of abdominal 3T DW-MRI in comparison with CECT, especially in detecting diaphragmatic and peritoneal ovarian cancer metastases, excluding lymph nodal metastases and in differentiating malignant adnexal tumors from benign.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信