BioMed research international · 2020
Magnetic Resonance of Rectal Cancer Response to Therapy: An Image Quality Comparison between 3.0 and 1.5 Tesla.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Caruso Damiano, Zerunian Marta, De Santis Domenico, Biondi Tommaso, Paolantonio Pasquale, Rengo Marco, Bellini Davide, Ferrari Riccardo, Ciolina Maria, Lucertini Elena, Polici Michela, Iannicelli Elsa, Tombolini Vincenzo, Laghi Andrea
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate signal intensity (SI) differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T on T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in rectal cancer pre-, during, and postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 22 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent T2w, DWI, and ADC pre-, during, and post-CRT on both 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. A radiologist drew regions of interest (ROIs) of the tumor and obturator internus muscle on the selected slice to evaluate SI and relative SI (rSI). Additionally, a subanalysis evaluating the SI before and after-CRT (∆SI pre-post) in complete responder patients (CR) and nonresponder patients (NR) on T2w, DWI, and ADC was performed.
RESULTS: Significant differences were observed for T2w and DWI on 3.0 T MRI compared to 1.5 T MRI pre-, during, and post-CRT (all P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were reported for ADC among all controls (all P > 0.05). rSI showed no significant differences in all the examinations for all sequences (all P > 0.05). ∆SI showed significant differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI for DWI-∆SI in CR and NR (188.39 ± 166.90 vs. 30.45 ± 21.73 and 169.70 ± 121.87 vs. 22.00 ± 31.29, respectively, all P 0.02) and ADC-∆SI for CR (-0.58 ± 0.27 vs. -0.21 ± 0.24P value 0.02), while no significant differences were observed for ADC-∆SI in NR and both CR and NR for T2w-∆SI.
CONCLUSION: T2w-SI and DWI-SI showed significant differences for 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T in all three controls, while ADCSI showed no significant differences in all three controls on both field strengths. rSI was comparable for 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in rectal cancer patients; therefore, rectal cancer patients can be assessed both at 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. However, a significant DWI-∆SI and ADC-∆SI on 3.0 T in CR might be interpreted as a better visual assessment in discriminating response to therapy compared to 1.5 T. Further investigations should be performed to confirm future possible clinical application.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 22 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent T2w, DWI, and ADC pre-, during, and post-CRT on both 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. A radiologist drew regions of interest (ROIs) of the tumor and obturator internus muscle on the selected slice to evaluate SI and relative SI (rSI). Additionally, a subanalysis evaluating the SI before and after-CRT (∆SI pre-post) in complete responder patients (CR) and nonresponder patients (NR) on T2w, DWI, and ADC was performed.
RESULTS: Significant differences were observed for T2w and DWI on 3.0 T MRI compared to 1.5 T MRI pre-, during, and post-CRT (all P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were reported for ADC among all controls (all P > 0.05). rSI showed no significant differences in all the examinations for all sequences (all P > 0.05). ∆SI showed significant differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI for DWI-∆SI in CR and NR (188.39 ± 166.90 vs. 30.45 ± 21.73 and 169.70 ± 121.87 vs. 22.00 ± 31.29, respectively, all P 0.02) and ADC-∆SI for CR (-0.58 ± 0.27 vs. -0.21 ± 0.24P value 0.02), while no significant differences were observed for ADC-∆SI in NR and both CR and NR for T2w-∆SI.
CONCLUSION: T2w-SI and DWI-SI showed significant differences for 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T in all three controls, while ADCSI showed no significant differences in all three controls on both field strengths. rSI was comparable for 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in rectal cancer patients; therefore, rectal cancer patients can be assessed both at 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. However, a significant DWI-∆SI and ADC-∆SI on 3.0 T in CR might be interpreted as a better visual assessment in discriminating response to therapy compared to 1.5 T. Further investigations should be performed to confirm future possible clinical application.