4.6 Article

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

期刊

GASTRIC CANCER
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 216-225

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10120-015-0468-1

关键词

Gastric cancer; Endoscopic ultrasonography; Multidetector computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; TNM staging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. 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. 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). 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.

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