RESUMEN
AIM: To analyse changes in post-neoadjuvant follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging accuracy for malignant adenopathies in rectal cancer, by comparing size criteria with morphological criteria using high-resolution T2-weighted sequences, as well as variations when adding diffusion-weighted imaging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The present study was a cross-sectional study of a database including 46 1.5-T MRI examinations (2011-2016) from patients with biopsy-proven rectal cancer and chemoradiotherapy treatment before surgery. All cases were reviewed by three radiologists individually, who were blinded to any clinical information. The radiologists were experienced in rectal cancer (3-6 years) and evaluated the presence of malignant nodes in each patient. Malignancy was determined using morphological, size (5 mm), and diffusion criteria separately, as well as morphology plus diffusion. Each case was assessed four times: (1) evaluation of morphological criteria; (2) size criteria; (3) evaluation only using diffusion (b-values 50, 400, and 800); and (4) diffusion plus morphological criteria. Histological staging of surgical specimens was the reference standard. Statistical analysis included accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC]), sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) for each radiologist, and group agreement (Fleiss' kappa). RESULTS: Mean values using morphological criteria were: AUC 0.78, sensitivity 77.7%, specificity 73.8%, PPV 66.1%, NPV 85.2%. Using size criterion: AUC 0.75, sensitivity 62.9%, specificity 83.2%, PPV 74.1%, NPV 80%. Added diffusion yielded no improvement, and yielded worse results by itself. CONCLUSIONS: Although morphological criteria showed better results in accuracy, sensitivity, and NPV, size criterion yielded the best specificity and PPV. Adding diffusion did not demonstrate a clear advantage over the criteria by themselves. Thus, mixed size-morphology criteria could have the greatest diagnostic value for follow-up N-staging.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Recto/diagnóstico por imagen , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Quimioradioterapia , Estudios Transversales , Imagen de Difusión por Resonancia Magnética , Femenino , Humanos , Metástasis Linfática/diagnóstico por imagen , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estadificación de Neoplasias/métodos , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Neoplasias del Recto/terapia , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
El HPTP es una patología muy frecuente que a menudo cursa de manera asintomática. Siendo la intervención quirúrgica el único tratamiento curativo de la enfermedad, existen unos criterios de indicación de cirugía que no siempre se ajustan a la realidad del paciente, pues se basan en la existencia de complicaciones clínicas (osteoporosis, insuficiencia renal, urolitiasis, fracturas por fragilidad). Presentamos el caso clínico de una paciente que no cumplía ninguno de los requisitos para ser intervenida quirúrgicamente según los documentos de posición, y que fue operada tras demostrarse la existencia de un deterioro de la estructura trabecular ósea, determinada por la técnica TBS (trabecular bone score), y localizarse el adenoma por gammagrafía. Se discute la posible utilidad de estas técnicas, no observadas en los documentos de posición, como complemento de la decisión de cirugía (AU)
HPTP is a very frequent pathology which often develops asymptomatically. Surgical intervention being the only curative treatment for this disease there are some criteria for the indication of surgery, but these do not always fit the reality of the patient since they are based on clinical complications (osteoporosis, renal insufficiency, urolithiasis, fragility fractures). We present the clinical case of a patient who did not meet any of the requirements for having surgical intervention according to the position documents, and who was operated on after the existence was shown of a deterioration of the trabecular bone structure, determined by the TBS (trabecular bone score) technique, and located in the adenoma using gammagraphy. The possible use of these techniques, not seen in the position documents, to complement the decision regarding surgery, is discusse (AU)