4.7 Article

Assessing Microcirculation in Resectable Oesophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI for Identifying Primary tumour and Lymphatic Metastasis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-36929-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81571645]
  2. Sichuan Province Special Project for Youth Team of Science and Technology Innovation [2015TD0029]
  3. Construction Plan for Scientific Research Team of Sichuan Provincial Colleges and Universities [15TD0023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine whether dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) derived parameters can identify oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and lymphatic metastasis. Thirty-nine oesophageal SCC patients underwent DCE-MRI. Quantitative parameters including endothelial transfer constant (K-trans), reflux rate (K-ep), fractional extravascular extracellular space volume and fractional plasma volume, and semi-quantitative parameters including time to peak (TTP), max concentration, Max Slope and area under concentration-time curve of both oesophageal SCC and normal oesophagus were measured. Mann-Whitney U test revealed that K-trans and K-ep of oesophageal SCC were higher while TTP was shorter when compared to normal oesophagus (all P-values < 0.05); and areas under receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curves displayed that K-ep was superior to TTP or K-trans for identifying oesophageal SCC (0.903 vs. 0.832 or 0.713). Mann-Whitney U test also demonstrated that K-ep was higher and TTP was shorter in patients with lymphatic metastasis when compared to non-metastatic cancer patients (both P-values < 0.05), and area under ROC curve also showed that TTP was superior to K-ep for predicting lymphatic metastasis (0.696 vs. 0.659). In conclusion, the combination of quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters derived from DCE-MRI can aid in the identification of oesophageal SCC and lymphatic metastasis.

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

4.7
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