학술논문

Diagnostic performance in T staging for patients with esophagogastric junction cancer using high-resolution MRI: a comparison with conventional MRI at 3 tesla
Document Type
article
Source
Cancer Imaging, Vol 19, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2019)
Subject
Esophagogastric junction cancer
T staging
High-resolution MRI
Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
R895-920
Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
RC254-282
Language
English
ISSN
1470-7330
Abstract
Abstract Background To investigate and compare the diagnostic performance in T staging for patients with esophagogastric junction cancer using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (HR MRI), as compared with conventional MRI at 3 Tesla. Methods A total of 118 patients with pathologically confirmed esophagogastric junction cancer were included and underwent multiparameter HR MRI (Cohort 1, 62 patients) or conventional MRI (Cohort 2, 56 patients). T2-weighted, T1-weighted, diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images of each patient were evaluated by two radiologists who determined the preoperative T staging by consensus. Using pathologic staging as the gold standard, the consistency between HR MRI and pathology and between conventional MRI and pathology in T staging was calculated and compared. The overall accuracy, overstatement and understatement of HR MRI and conventional MRI in T staging of patients with esophagogastric junction cancer were computed and compared. Moreover, the diagnostic performance of HR MRI and conventional MRI in T staging (≤ T1 and ≥ T4) of patients with esophagogastric junction cancer were evaluated. Results There were no significant differences in age (p = 0.465) and sex (p = 0.175) between Cohorts 1 and 2. Excellent agreement was observed in the T staging of patients with esophagogastric junction cancer between pathology and HR MRI (kappa = 0.813), while moderate agreement was observed between pathology and conventional MRI (kappa = 0.486). Significant differences were observed in overall accuracy (88.7% vs 64.3%, p = 0.002) and understatement (1.6% vs 26.8%, p