4.6 Article

Colorectal cancer: Current imaging methods and future perspectives for the diagnosis, staging and therapeutic response evaluation

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 19, 期 46, 页码 8502-8514

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i46.8502

关键词

Colorectal cancer; Imaging; Staging; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Diffusion weighted imaging; Contrast enhanced ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the last 10 years the mortality rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) has decreased by more than 20% due to the rising developments in diagnostic techniques and optimization of surgical, neoadjuvant and palliative therapies. Diagnostic methods currently used in the evaluation of CRC are heterogeneous and can vary within the countries and the institutions. This article aims to discuss in depth currently applied imaging modalities such as virtual computed tomography colonoscopy, endorectal ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of CRC. Special focus is put on the potential of recent diagnostic developments as diffusion weighted imaging MRI, MRI biomarkers (dynamic enhanced MRI), positron emission tomography with 2-(fluorine-18)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG-PET) combined with computed tomography (PET/CT) and new hepatobiliary MRI contrast agents. The precise role, advantage and disadvantages of these modalities are evaluated controversially in local staging, metastatic spread and treatment monitoring of CRC. Finally, the authors will touch upon the future perspectives in functional imaging evaluating the role of integrated FDG-PET/CT with perfusion CT, MRI spectroscopy of primary CRC and hepatic transit time analysis using contrast enhanced ultrasound and MRI in the detection of liver metastases. Validation of these newer imaging techniques may lead to significant improvements in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. (C) 2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据