PloS one · 2015
Is Non-Contrast CT Adequate for the Evaluation of Hepatic Metastasis in Patients Who Cannot Receive Iodinated Contrast Media?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jee Han Bum, Park Min Jung, Lee Hye Sun, Park Mi-Suk, Kim Myeong-Jin, Chung Yong Eun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriateness of follow-up with only non-enhanced CT (NECT) in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 323 patients with colorectal and gastric cancer who underwent two consecutive CT examinations (CT1 and CT2), including non-contrast and portal venous phase CT images, with an interval of 1 year. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A included patients with no hepatic metastasis on CT1 and with or without newly developed metastasis on CT2 to evaluate the diagnostic performance of NECT for detecting newly developed hepatic metastasis; Group B included patients with known hepatic metastasis both on CT1 and CT2 to evaluate the accuracy of NECT for the assessment of hepatic metastasis based on RECIST criteria (version 1.1). Contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images were considered as reference standards.
RESULTS: Group A included 172 patients (M:F = 107:65; mean age, 62.6 years). Among them, 57 patients had 95 metastases (mean size, 2.2 ± 1.3 cm). Per patient and per lesion sensitivity for diagnosing newly developed hepatic metastasis was 56.1-66.7% and 52.6-56.8%, respectively. In terms of small metastases (<1.5 cm), per lesion sensitivity was significantly decreased to 28.1-34.4% (P < 0.05). Metastasis size measurements were significantly smaller on NECT (P < 0.001) compared with reference standards. In Group B, the accuracy of response evaluation based on RECIST criteria was 65.6-72.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: NECT showed inadequate diagnostic performances in both detecting newly developed hepatic metastasis and evaluating the response of hepatic metastasis based on RECIST criteria.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 323 patients with colorectal and gastric cancer who underwent two consecutive CT examinations (CT1 and CT2), including non-contrast and portal venous phase CT images, with an interval of 1 year. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A included patients with no hepatic metastasis on CT1 and with or without newly developed metastasis on CT2 to evaluate the diagnostic performance of NECT for detecting newly developed hepatic metastasis; Group B included patients with known hepatic metastasis both on CT1 and CT2 to evaluate the accuracy of NECT for the assessment of hepatic metastasis based on RECIST criteria (version 1.1). Contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images were considered as reference standards.
RESULTS: Group A included 172 patients (M:F = 107:65; mean age, 62.6 years). Among them, 57 patients had 95 metastases (mean size, 2.2 ± 1.3 cm). Per patient and per lesion sensitivity for diagnosing newly developed hepatic metastasis was 56.1-66.7% and 52.6-56.8%, respectively. In terms of small metastases (<1.5 cm), per lesion sensitivity was significantly decreased to 28.1-34.4% (P < 0.05). Metastasis size measurements were significantly smaller on NECT (P < 0.001) compared with reference standards. In Group B, the accuracy of response evaluation based on RECIST criteria was 65.6-72.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: NECT showed inadequate diagnostic performances in both detecting newly developed hepatic metastasis and evaluating the response of hepatic metastasis based on RECIST criteria.