European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
Improving staging of rectal cancer in the pelvis: the role of PET/MRI.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Catalano Onofrio A, Lee Susanna I, Parente Chiara, Cauley Christy, Furtado Felipe S, Striar Robin, Soricelli Andrea, Salvatore Marco, Li Yan, Umutlu Lale, Cañamaque Lina Garcia, Groshar David, Mahmood Umar, Blaszkowsky Lawrence S, Ryan David P, Clark Jeffrey W, Wo Jennifer, Hong Theodore S, Kunitake Hiroko, Bordeianou Liliana, Berger David, Ricciardi Rocco, Rosen Bruce
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The role of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) in evaluating the local extent of rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the possible role of PET/MR versus magnetic resonance (MR) in clinically staging rectal cancer.
METHODS: This retrospective two-center cohort study of 62 patients with untreated rectal cancer investigated the possible role of baseline staging PET/MR versus stand-alone MR in determination of clinical stage. Two readers reviewed T and N stage, mesorectal fascia involvement, tumor length, distance from the anal verge, sphincter involvement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI). Sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal examination, and follow-up imaging, along with surgery when available, served as the reference standard.
RESULTS: PET/MR outperformed MR in evaluating tumor size (42.5 ± 21.03 mm per the reference standard, 54 ± 20.45 mm by stand-alone MR, and 44 ± 20 mm by PET/MR, P = 0.004), and in identifying N status (correct by MR in 36/62 patients [58%] and by PET/MR in 49/62 cases [79%]; P = 0.02) and external sphincter infiltration (correct by MR in 6/10 and by PET/MR in 9/10; P = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to any other features.
CONCLUSION: PET/MR provides a more precise assessment of the local extent of rectal cancers in evaluating cancer length, N status, and external sphincter involvement. PET/MR offers the opportunity to improve clinical decision-making, especially when evaluating low rectal tumors with possible external sphincter involvement.
METHODS: This retrospective two-center cohort study of 62 patients with untreated rectal cancer investigated the possible role of baseline staging PET/MR versus stand-alone MR in determination of clinical stage. Two readers reviewed T and N stage, mesorectal fascia involvement, tumor length, distance from the anal verge, sphincter involvement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI). Sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal examination, and follow-up imaging, along with surgery when available, served as the reference standard.
RESULTS: PET/MR outperformed MR in evaluating tumor size (42.5 ± 21.03 mm per the reference standard, 54 ± 20.45 mm by stand-alone MR, and 44 ± 20 mm by PET/MR, P = 0.004), and in identifying N status (correct by MR in 36/62 patients [58%] and by PET/MR in 49/62 cases [79%]; P = 0.02) and external sphincter infiltration (correct by MR in 6/10 and by PET/MR in 9/10; P = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to any other features.
CONCLUSION: PET/MR provides a more precise assessment of the local extent of rectal cancers in evaluating cancer length, N status, and external sphincter involvement. PET/MR offers the opportunity to improve clinical decision-making, especially when evaluating low rectal tumors with possible external sphincter involvement.