4.6 Article

Optimal diagnostic method using multidetector-row computed tomography for predicting lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-019-1583-y

关键词

Colorectal cancer; Lymph node metastasis; Multidetector-row computed tomography; Preoperative diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPrediction of nodal involvement in colorectal cancer is an important aspect of preoperative workup to determine the necessity of preoperative treatment and the adequate extent of lymphadenectomy during surgery. This study aimed to investigate newer multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) findings for better predicting lymph node (LN) metastasis in colorectal cancer.MethodsSeventy patients were enrolled in this study; all underwent MDCT prior to surgery and upfront curative resection for colorectal cancer. LNs with a short-axis diameter (SAD)4mm were identified on MDCT images, and the following measures were recorded by two radiologists independently: two-dimensional (2D) SAD, 2D long-axis diameter (LAD), 2D ratio of SAD to LAD, 2D CT attenuation value, three-dimensional (3D) SAD, 3D LAD, 3D SAD to LAD ratio, 3D CT attenuation value, LN volume, and presence of extranodal neoplastic spread (ENS), as defined by indistinct nodal margin, irregular capsular enhancement, or infiltration into adjacent structures.ResultsForty-six patients presented 173 LNs with a SAD 4mm, while 24 patients exhibited pathologically confirmed LN metastases. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that 2D LAD was the most sensitive measure for LN metastases with an area under the curve of 0.752 (cut-off value, 7.05mm). When combined with CT findings indicating ENS, 2D LAD (> or 7mm) showed enhanced predictive power for LN metastases (area under the curve, 0.846; p<0.001).ConclusionsLAD in axial MDCT imaging is the most sensitive measure for predicting colorectal LN metastases, especially when MDCT findings of ENS are observed.

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