The diagnostic value of multiplanar reconstruction on MDCT colonography for the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images can improve the accuracy of MDCT-based colorectal cancer preoperative staging by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Fifty-five patients with colorectal cancer underwent contrast-enhanced CT colonography using an 8- or 16-row scanner. Two separate interval reviews of the axial MDCT datasets with/without MPR images (coronal and sagittal) were performed independently by two radiologists blinded to both the colonoscopic and histopathologic results. At each review session, the radiologists were asked to determine the colorectal cancer TNM stage within the context of differentiating < or =T3 from T4, N0 from > or =N1 and M0 from M1 using a five-point confidence scale. The radiologists' performance for staging the colorectal cancer using axial CT datasets with/without MPR images was evaluated using ROC analysis. Sensitivities, specificities and interobserver agreement were assessed. When MPR images were added, significant improvement was achieved by both radiologists for differentiating N0 from > or =N1 in terms of both A(Z) (0.651 to 0.769; 0.573 to 0.713) and specificity (26.7 to 69.2%; 23.1 to 76.9%) (P<0.05). For T staging, ROC analysis failed to show a significant improvement in terms of differentiating < or =T3 from T4 for either radiologist (P>0.05), but a significant improvement in the specificity (70 to 90%; 80 to 92%) was achieved by one radiologist (P<0.05). In terms of the M staging, a significant improvement in the Az (0.844 to 0.996) was observed for the combined interpretation of the axial and MPR images by one radiologist (P<0.05). Furthermore, substantial or almost perfect interobserver agreement was achieved for all TNM stagings for the combined interpretations (kappa=0.641-0.866), whereas only fair to substantial agreement was achieved for the axial images alone (kappa=0.337-0.707). In conclusion, the combined interpretation of the axial and MPR MDCT images significantly improved the local staging of colorectal cancer compared with assessments based on axial images alone.

Computer-aided detection in CT colonography: initial clinical experience using a prototype system

“…Variability in results has been attributed to different scanning and image interpretation techniques (2D versus 3D) as well as bowel preparation regimens [2]. Furthermore, differences in collimation, pitch, and 3D postprocessing software can influence the performance of CTC [15][16][17]. In CT colonography, computer-aided detection (CAD) shows promising results in smaller series of patients.…”

CT Findings of Gallbladder Metastases: Emphasis on Differences According to Primary Tumors

“…The results were not surprising, given that metastatic tumors typically show similar morphologic and enhancement features as those of primary tumors. Adenocarcinomas of the GI tract usually appear as wall thickenings with delayed enhancement due to abundant desmoplastic tissue within the tumors (13,14,15). RCCs, HCCs, and melanomas are hypervascular tumors, which show early, strong arterial enhancement and portal wash-out on CT or MRI (16,17,18).…”

Staging chest radiography is not useful in patients with colorectal cancer

“…[23] Increased carcinoembryonic antigen levels during follow-up are useful to selectively use PET/CT. [22] Our results indicate that the detection rate of pulmonary metastases on SCXR in patients with colorectal cancer is low, partly due to a low sensitivity but primarily due to a low incidence rate. Given the existing literature and the results of our study, it is unlikely that the routine use of the SCXR is useful or cost-effective.…”

“…[21] The PET/CT has shown to be very accurate for the detection of metastases. [22] Compared to CT, PET/CT is superior in the detection of extra-hepatic metastases. Sensitivity of 89% for the PET/CT compared to a sensitivity of 61% for the CT.. [23] Excellent results can be expected for pulmonary metastases.…”