Abbreviated MRI protocol for colorectal liver metastases: How the radiologist could work in pre surgical setting.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
18
05
2020
accepted:
15
10
2020
entrez:
19
11
2020
pubmed:
20
11
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
MRI is the most reliable imaging modality that allows to assess liver metastases. Our purpose is to compare the per-lesion and per-patient detection rate of gadoxetic acid-(Gd-EOB) enhanced liver MRI and fast MR protocol including Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and T2-W Fat Suppression sequence in the detection of liver metastasis in pre surgical setting. One hundred and eight patients with pathologically proven liver metastases (756 liver metastases) underwent Gd-EOBMRI were enrolled in this study. Three radiologist independently graded the presence of liver lesions on a five-point confidence scale assessed only abbreviated protocol (DWI and sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolution (SPACE) fat suppressed sequence) and after an interval of more than 2 weeks the conventional study (all acquired sequences). Per-lesion and per-patient detection rate of metastases were calculated. Weighted к values were used to evaluate inter-reader agreement of the confidence scale regarding the presence of the lesion. MRI detected 732 liver metastases. All lesions were identified both by conventional study as by abbreviated protocol. In terms of per-lesion detection rate of liver metastasis, all three readers had higher detection rate both with abbreviated protocol and with standard protocol with Gd-EOB (96.8% [732 of 756] vs. 96.5% [730 of 756] for reader 1; 95.8% [725 of 756] vs. 95.2% [720 of 756] for reader 2; 96.5% [730 of 756] vs. 96.5% [730 of 756] for reader 3). Inter-reader agreement of lesions detection rate between the three radiologists was excellent (k range, 0.86-0.98) both for Gd-EOB MRI and for Fast protocol (k range, 0.89-0.99). Abbreviated protocol showed the same detection rate than conventional study in detection of liver metastases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
MRI is the most reliable imaging modality that allows to assess liver metastases. Our purpose is to compare the per-lesion and per-patient detection rate of gadoxetic acid-(Gd-EOB) enhanced liver MRI and fast MR protocol including Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and T2-W Fat Suppression sequence in the detection of liver metastasis in pre surgical setting.
METHODS
One hundred and eight patients with pathologically proven liver metastases (756 liver metastases) underwent Gd-EOBMRI were enrolled in this study. Three radiologist independently graded the presence of liver lesions on a five-point confidence scale assessed only abbreviated protocol (DWI and sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolution (SPACE) fat suppressed sequence) and after an interval of more than 2 weeks the conventional study (all acquired sequences). Per-lesion and per-patient detection rate of metastases were calculated. Weighted к values were used to evaluate inter-reader agreement of the confidence scale regarding the presence of the lesion.
RESULTS
MRI detected 732 liver metastases. All lesions were identified both by conventional study as by abbreviated protocol. In terms of per-lesion detection rate of liver metastasis, all three readers had higher detection rate both with abbreviated protocol and with standard protocol with Gd-EOB (96.8% [732 of 756] vs. 96.5% [730 of 756] for reader 1; 95.8% [725 of 756] vs. 95.2% [720 of 756] for reader 2; 96.5% [730 of 756] vs. 96.5% [730 of 756] for reader 3). Inter-reader agreement of lesions detection rate between the three radiologists was excellent (k range, 0.86-0.98) both for Gd-EOB MRI and for Fast protocol (k range, 0.89-0.99).
CONCLUSION
Abbreviated protocol showed the same detection rate than conventional study in detection of liver metastases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33211702
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241431
pii: PONE-D-20-14720
pmc: PMC7676687
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0241431Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Mar;204(3):527-35
pubmed: 25714281
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015 Apr;6(2):201-7
pubmed: 25830039
Radiologia. 2017 Nov - Dec;59(6):469-477
pubmed: 29110904
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Apr;45(4):988-997
pubmed: 27726239
Eur Radiol Exp. 2019 Dec 18;3(1):49
pubmed: 31853685
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019 Nov;23(22):9697-9706
pubmed: 31799635
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Dec;25(6):265-268
pubmed: 27748716
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:3918292
pubmed: 27652261
Oncologist. 2019 Oct;24(10):e990-e1005
pubmed: 31217342
Infect Agent Cancer. 2019 Nov 27;14:40
pubmed: 31798677
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Oct;40(7):2364-71
pubmed: 26105523
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Apr;19(4):475-81
pubmed: 15065172
Radiol Oncol. 2019 Oct 25;53(4):373-387
pubmed: 31652122
Tumour Biol. 2015 Feb;36(2):983-90
pubmed: 25318600
Eur J Radiol. 2008 May;66(2):200-7
pubmed: 18374532
Invest Radiol. 2018 Oct;53(10):579-586
pubmed: 29944483
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Feb;210(2):W63-W69
pubmed: 29091004
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Feb;214(2):282-295
pubmed: 31825262
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016 May-Jun;40(3):498-504
pubmed: 26938696
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Dec;193(6):1607-14
pubmed: 19933655
Eur Radiol. 2019 Feb;29(2):1032-1038
pubmed: 29992388
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 20;12(6):e0179951
pubmed: 28632786
Invest Radiol. 2017 Jun;52(6):317-323
pubmed: 28368880
Clin Radiol. 2018 May;73(5):485-493
pubmed: 29246586
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Feb 7;21(5):1621-7
pubmed: 25663782
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Jan;42(1):179-190
pubmed: 27448609
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Jul;43(7):1627-1633
pubmed: 29018942
Abdom Imaging. 2013 Aug;38(4):647-71
pubmed: 22875476
Acta Radiol. 2007 May;48(4):362-8
pubmed: 17453513
Korean J Radiol. 2018 Jul-Aug;19(4):568-577
pubmed: 29962863
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Apr;25(4):848-58
pubmed: 17335018
Eur J Radiol. 2016 May;85(5):1027-34
pubmed: 27130067
Invest Radiol. 2016 Sep;51(9):544-51
pubmed: 27504794
Acta Radiol. 2009 Sep;50(7):709-15
pubmed: 19701821
BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Jul 24;19(1):129
pubmed: 31340755
Clin Ther. 2017 Apr;39(4):738-750.e4
pubmed: 28363694
Radiol Oncol. 2019 Jul 13;53(3):369-370
pubmed: 31318697
Future Oncol. 2018 Sep;14(21):2189-2206
pubmed: 30084273
Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Jul;32(6):610-8
pubmed: 24702980
Eur Radiol. 2016 Nov;26(11):4121-4130
pubmed: 26905871
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Jan;51(1):70-80
pubmed: 31062483
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Feb;51(2):415-425
pubmed: 31209978
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 13;10(11):e0142876
pubmed: 26566221
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 6;10(1):1969
pubmed: 32029809
J Med Econ. 2016 Aug;19(8):759-68
pubmed: 27026278
J Int Med Res. 2019 Jun;47(6):2351-2360
pubmed: 31032670