Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2010
Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector-row computed tomography for hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akamatsu Nobuhisa, Sugawara Yasuhiko, Osada Hisato, Okada Takenori, Itoyama Shinji, Komagome Masahiko, Shin Nobuhiro, Cho Narihiro, Ishida Takashi, Ozawa Fumiaki, Hashimoto Daijo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic reliability of multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) for the evaluation of tumor spread in hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
METHODS: Images obtained from a 16-detector row scanner of 22 patients were interpreted. The diagnostic accuracy of longitudinal ductal spread, vertical invasion (including hepatic parenchyma), and lymph node metastasis was assessed with reference to histopathological findings.
RESULTS: The location of the tumor was correctly diagnosed in 95% of cases (21/22), but in five of these cases, the cut end of the intrahepatic bile duct was positive, resulting in 77% diagnostic accuracy for longitudinal spread. Among the patients with a negative bile duct surgical margin, there was a significant difference in the measurement of tumor spread between MDCT and microscopic investigation (P < 0.001). For vertical invasion, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of MDCT were 69%, 100%, 100%, and 69% for the liver parenchyma, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MDCT for lymph node metastasis were 50%, 75%, 43%, and 80%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of MDCT for tumor location and vertical invasion was satisfactory, but ductal spread was underestimated in comparison with microscopic measurements.
METHODS: Images obtained from a 16-detector row scanner of 22 patients were interpreted. The diagnostic accuracy of longitudinal ductal spread, vertical invasion (including hepatic parenchyma), and lymph node metastasis was assessed with reference to histopathological findings.
RESULTS: The location of the tumor was correctly diagnosed in 95% of cases (21/22), but in five of these cases, the cut end of the intrahepatic bile duct was positive, resulting in 77% diagnostic accuracy for longitudinal spread. Among the patients with a negative bile duct surgical margin, there was a significant difference in the measurement of tumor spread between MDCT and microscopic investigation (P < 0.001). For vertical invasion, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of MDCT were 69%, 100%, 100%, and 69% for the liver parenchyma, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MDCT for lymph node metastasis were 50%, 75%, 43%, and 80%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of MDCT for tumor location and vertical invasion was satisfactory, but ductal spread was underestimated in comparison with microscopic measurements.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAged, 80 and overBile Duct NeoplasmsBile Ducts, IntrahepaticCholangiocarcinomaFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray Computed