64 Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography for Preoperative Evaluation of Gastric Cancer

Yang, Dal Mo; Kim, Hyun Cheol; Jin, Wook; Ryu, Chang‐Woo; Kang, Jee-Hyun; Park, Chul Hi; Kim, Hyung Sik; Jung, Dong Hae

doi:10.1097/01.rct.0000234072.16209.ab

Cited by 78 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Eight MDCT studies [14,18,21,22,31,32,35,39] were of high methodological quality. • For the MRI studies, the total methodological quality score ranged from 46% to 77% (median, 62%).…”

Section: Methodological Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Eight MDCT studies [14,18,21,22,31,32,35,39] were of high methodological quality. • For the MRI studies, the total methodological quality score ranged from 46% to 77% (median, 62%).…”

Section: Methodological Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Overall TNM staging results for each technique (AUS, CT, MRI, and PET) are presented in Tables 1, 2 [23,24,27,28,34,38,39,47,48,[53][54][55]58], to determine whether the use of more detector rows to capture images translated into better pre-operative staging performances (Table 6). Overall, CT scanners with C4 detectors had significantly better T staging performances compared to CT scanners with \4 detectors.…”

Section: Performance Characteristics Of Pre-operative Imaging Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, detector number did not significantly affect N or M staging performances. We compared the pooled TNM performance characteristics of CT scanners using traditional single plane axial images [25, 28-35, 37, 38, 40-42, 46, 49, 52, 57-59] with scanners using multi-planar reformatted (MPR) images [23,24,27,28,34,38,39,44,47,48,[53][54][55][56]58], to determine whether the addition of multiple image planes translated into better pre-operative staging performances (Table 6). Overall, CT scanners using MPR images had significantly better T staging performances compared to Pre-operative TNM staging S11 Data presented as pooled means ± standard error of all studies within a given category using the inverse variance method.…”

Section: Performance Characteristics Of Pre-operative Imaging Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Surgery is the fundamental curative option for gastric cancer patients. Imaging scans are routinely prescribed in an attempt to stage the disease prior to surgery. Consequently, the correlation between radiology exams and pathology is crucial for appropriate treatment planning. Methods Systematic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1998 to December 1, 2009. We calculated the accuracy, overstaging rate, understaging rate, Kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity for abdominal ultrasound (AUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to the gold standard (pathology). We also compared the performance of CT by detector number and image type. A meta-analysis was performed. Results For pre-operative T staging MRI scans had better performance accuracy than CT and AUS; CT scanners using C4 detectors and multi-planar reformatted (MPR) images had higher staging performances than scanners with \4 detectors and axial images only. For pre-operative N staging PET had the lowest sensitivity, but the highest specificity among modalities; CT performance did not significantly differ by detector number or addition of MPR images. For pre-operative M staging performance did not significantly differ by modality, detector number, or MPR images. Conclusions The agreement between pre-operative TNM staging by imaging scans and post-operative staging by pathology is not perfect and may affect treatment decisions. Operator dependence and heterogeneity of data may Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

“…Its accuracy has constantly improved, for detecting both the invasion of gastric wall, ranging from 69 to 89 % [11][12][13], and nodal involvement, ranging from 69 to 92 % [14,15]. Nevertheless, MDCT involves the use of ionizing radiation and cannot adequately differentiate all the gastric wall layers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative locoregional staging of gastric cancer: is there a place for magnetic resonance imaging? Prospective comparison with EUS and multidetector computed tomography

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the preoperative locoregional staging of gastric cancer. Methods This study had Institutional Review Board approval, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Fifty-two patients with biopsy-proven gastric cancer underwent preoperative 1.5-T MRI, 64-channel MDCT and EUS. All images were analysed blind, and the results were compared with histopathological findings according to the seventh edition of the TNM classification. After the population had been divided on the basis of the local invasion (T1-3 vs T4a-b) and nodal involvement (N0 vs N?), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated and diagnostic performance measures were assessed using the McNemar test. Results For T staging, EUS showed higher sensitivity (94 %) than MDCT and MRI (65 and 76 %; p = 0.02 and p = 0.08). MDCT and MRI had significantly higher specificity (91 and 89 %) than EUS (60 %) (p = 0.0009 and p = 0.003). Adding MRI to MDCT or EUS did not result in significant differences for sensitivity. For N staging, EUS showed higher sensitivity (92 %) than MRI and MDCT (69 and 73 %; p = 0.01 and p = 0.02). MDCT showed better specificity (81 %) than EUS and MRI (58 and 73 %; p = 0.03 and p = 0.15). Conclusions Our prospective study confirmed the leading role of EUS and MDCT in the staging of gastric cancer and did not prove, at present, the value of the clinical use of MRI.

show abstract

64 Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography for Preoperative Evaluation of Gastric Cancer

Abstract: The 64 MDCT is a promising technique for the detection and preoperative staging of gastric cancer.

Cited by 78 publications

References 18 publications

Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer

Imaging in assessing lymph node status in gastric cancer

How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis

Preoperative locoregional staging of gastric cancer: is there a place for magnetic resonance imaging? Prospective comparison with EUS and multidetector computed tomography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About