Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2017 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 5

Mean ADC values discriminate rectal mucinous carcinomafrom rectal nonmucinous adenocarcinoma

Pages
1520–1525
Publication Date
2022-11-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: MCs and ACs show different diffusion characteristics, which can be distinguished with high sensitivity and specificity and can help to improve prognostic treatment options.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: This study aimed to differentiate rectal mucinous carcinoma (MC) from nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (AC) using mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) values obtained with diffusion-weighted imaging.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: Sixty-two pathologically confirmed rectal AC (n = 44) and MC (n = 18) patients were included in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: MCs and ACs show different diffusion characteristics, which can be distinguished with high sensitivity and specificity and can help to improve prognostic treatment options.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: This study aimed to differentiate rectal mucinous carcinoma (MC) from nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (AC) using mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) values obtained with diffusion-weighted imaging. Materials and methods: Sixty-two pathologically confirmed rectal AC (n = 44) and MC (n = 18) patients were included in this study. The two groups underwent pelvic MRI to determine the local staging baseline for rectal tumors. Once the region of interest (ROI) was determined, a border was drawn around each hyperintense tumor (b = 1000 s/mm2images). Following a repeat of this procedure for each patient, the ROIs were recorded to apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, and mADC values were measured. The mADC was determined per slice, followed by a calculation of whole tumor volume ADC mean using the individual mADC values. The MannWhitney test was performed to compare mADCs for the two groups. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to determine the differentiating capacity of ADCs from MC to AC. Results: The mADC was higher in MC (1.631 ± 0.375 × 10 3 mm2 /s) (range: 0.95 2.36 × 10 3 mm2 /s) than in AC (0.921 ± 0.157 × 10 3 mm2 /s) (range: 0.6 1.48 × 10 3 mm2 /s) (P < 0.001). mADCs were effective in distinguishing MC from AC (area under the ROC curve, 0.972 (95% CI : 0.928 1.00)). A threshold of 1.27 × 10 3 mm2 /s was set that corresponded with high sensitivity (94.4%) and specificity (97.7%). Twelve MCs (67%) were predominantly hypointense, and 6 MCs (33%) were seen as mixed signal intensity lesions. Forty ACs (91%) were observed as hyperintense lesions, and 4 ACs (9%) had mixed signal intensity. There was a significant difference in the signal intensities between MC and AC (c2= 54.7, P < 0.001). Conclusion: MCs and ACs show different diffusion characteristics, which can be distinguished with high sensitivity and specificity and can help to improve prognostic treatment options.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDEN, A., ER, H. Ç. (2022). Mean ADC values discriminate rectal mucinous carcinomafrom rectal nonmucinous adenocarcinoma. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 5, 1520–1525. https://ajindex.com/articles/610549

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. MERCURY Study Group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ 2006; 333: 779-785
  2. Hyngstrom JR, Hu CY, Xing Y, You YN, Feig BW, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Cormier JN, Chang GJ. Clinicopathology and outcomes for mucinous and signet ring colorectal adenocarcinoma: analysis from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 2814-2821
  3. Hugen N, Verhoeven RH, Radema SA, de Hingh IH, Pruijt JF, Nagtegaal ID, Lemmens VE, de Wilt JH. Prognosis and value of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III mucinous colorectal carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2819-2824
  4. Jass JR, Sobin LH, Watanabe H. The World Health Organization’s histologic classification of gastrointestinal tumors. A commentary on the second edition. Cancer 1990; 66: 2162-2167
  5. Shin US, Yu CS, Kim JH, Kim TW, Lim SB, Yoon SN, Yoon YS, Kim CW, Kim JC. Mucinous rectal cancer: effectiveness of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and prognosis. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 2232-2239
  6. Oberholzer K, Menig M, Kreft A, Schneider A, Junginger T, Heintz A, Kreitner KF, Hötker AM, Hansen T, Düber C et al. Rectal cancer: mucinous carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging indicates poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 842-848
  7. Holdsworth SJ, Bammer R. Magnetic resonance imaging techniques: fMRI, DWI, and PWI. Semin Neurol 2008; 28: 395-406
  8. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 1622-1635
  9. Elmi A, Hedgire SS, Covarrubias D, Abtahi SM, Hahn PF, Harisinghani M. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a noninvasive predictor of treatment response and recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: 524-531
  10. Hanski C, Hofmeier M, Schmitt-Graff A, Riede E, Hanski ML, Borchard F, Sieber E, Niedobitek F, Foss HD, Stein H et al. Overexpression or ectopic expression of MUC2 is the common property of mucinous carcinomas of the colon, pancreas, breast, and ovary. J Pathol 1997; 182: 385-391
  11. Teixeira CR, Tanaka S, Haruma K, Yoshihara M, Sumii K, Kajiyama G, Shimamoto F. The clinical significance of the histologic subclassification of colorectal carcinoma. Oncology 1993; 50: 495-499
  12. Verhulst J, Ferdinande L, Demetter P, Ceelen W. Mucinous subtype as prognostic factor in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Pathol