RESUMEN

Background Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocellular carcinoma (IMC) is the second most common primary liver tumor. The differentiation between IMC and solitary hypovascular liver metastases (SHLM) represents a diagnostic challenge due to many overlapping magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features. Purpose To determine the value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in addition to conventional MRI for the distinction between intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma and solitary hypovascular liver metastases. Material and Methods Fifty-three patients with pathologically proven IMC (n = 31) and SHLM (n = 22) who had undergone MRI and DWI before surgery or percutaneous biopsy were enrolled in this study. The following MRI features were analyzed: the size and shape of the lesion, presence of capsular retraction and segmental biliary dilatation, T2-weighted (T2W) signal intensity, the presence of target sign on DWI and enhancement pattern. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were calculated for each lesion ( b = 800 s/mm2). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify significant differentiating features between IMCs and SHLMs. Results Univariate analysis revealed that following parameters favor diagnosis of IMCs over SHLMs: lobulating shape, heterogeneous T2W signal intensity, capsular retraction, segmental biliary dilatation, target sign on DWI and rim-like enhancement on arterial phase followed by progressive enhancement in delayed phases. ADC values measured in the periphery of the lesion were significantly lower in IMCs in comparison to SHLMs. Multivariate analysis revealed that target sign on DWI was the most significant predictor of IMCs. Conclusion Qualitative DWI analysis with target sign significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for differentiation among IMC and SHLM lesions.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose To determine the impact of three different methods of region of interest (ROI) positioning for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements on the assessment of complete response (CR) to neoadjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT) in patients with rectal cancer. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study; all patients gave written informed consent. ADCs were measured by two radiologists using three circular ROIs (three-ROIs), single-section (SS), and whole-tumor volume (WTV) methods in 62 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer on pre- and post-CRT images. Interobserver variability was analyzed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Descriptive statistics and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were calculated to evaluate performance in determining CR from pre- and post-CRT ADCs and ADC change. Histopathologic tumor regression grade was the reference standard. Results SS and WTV methods yielded higher AUCs than did the three-ROIs method when determining CR from post-CRT ADC (0.874 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.778, 0.970] and 0.886 [95% CI: 0.781, 0.990] vs 0.731 [95% CI: 0.583, 0.878], respectively; P = .033 and P = .003) and numeric change (0.892 [95% CI: 0.812, 0.972] and 0.897 [95% CI: 0.801, 0.994] vs 0.740 [95% CI: 0.591, 0.890], respectively; P = .048 and P = .0021). Respective accuracies of SS, WTV, and three-ROIs methods were 79% (49 of 62), 77% (48 of 62), and 61% (38 of 62) for post-CRT, 79% (49 of 62), 86% (53 of 62), and 60% (37 of 62) for numeric ADC change, and 77% (48 of 62), 84% (52 of 62), and 57% (35 of 62) for percentage ADC change (ADC cut-offs: 1.21, 1.30, and 1.05 × 10-3 mm2/sec, 0.33, 0.45, and 0.27 × 10-3 mm2/sec increases, and 40%, 54%, and 27% increases, respectively). Post-CRT and ADC change measurements achieved negative predictive values of 96% (44 of 46) to 100% (39 of 39). Intraobserver agreement was highest for WTV-derived ADCs (ICC, 0.742 [95% CI: 0.316, 0.892] to 0.891 [95% CI: 0.615, 0.956]) and higher for all pretreatment than posttreatment measurements (ICC, 0.761 [95% CI: 0.209, 0.930] and 0.648 [95% CI: 0.164, 0.895] for three-ROIs method, 0.608 [95% CI: 0.287, 0.844] and 0.582 [95% CI: 0.176, 0.870] for SS method, 0.891 [95% CI: 0.615, 0.956] and 0.742 for WTV method [95% CI: 0.316, 0.892]). Conclusion Tumor ADCs are highly dependent on the ROI positioning method used. Larger area measurements yield greater accuracy in response assessment. Post-CRT ADCs and values of ADC changes accurately identify noncomplete responders. WTV measurement of percentage ADC change provides the best results. © RSNA, 2016 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on September 19, 2016.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A 65-year-old man was evaluated because of vomiting and epigastric pain. The patient underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound examination and was found to have multiple polypoid lesions in the D1 and D2 portions of the duodenum, causing almost complete obstruction of the duodenal lumen. The lesions were hyperintense on T1-weighted and intermediately intense on T2-weighted images, with a drop in signal on T1- and T2-weighted fat-suppressed images, consistent with a diagnosis of duodenal lipomas. Pathohistological examination confirmed the diagnosis of duodenal lipomas.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)