Real-time ultrasonography-computed tomography fusion imaging for staging of hepatic metastatic involvement in patients with colorectal cancer: initial results from comparison to US seeing separate CT images and to multidetector-row CT alone
- PMID: 20458251
- DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181ddd3da
Real-time ultrasonography-computed tomography fusion imaging for staging of hepatic metastatic involvement in patients with colorectal cancer: initial results from comparison to US seeing separate CT images and to multidetector-row CT alone
Abstract
Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the role of real-time ultrasonography (US)-computed tomography (CT) fusion imaging (US-CT) in comparison with US seeing separate CT images (US + CT) and multidetector-row CT (MDCT) for the correct staging of hepatic metastatic involvement in patients with colorectal cancer.
Methods: Sixty-four patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer and who were referred for abdominopelvic staging before primary tumor resection underwent same-day MDCT, US + CT, and US-CT. Examinations were evaluated on-site by 2 investigators in consensus. Investigators recorded the size and location of detected lesions on segmental liver maps, classified them as being benign, malignant, or indeterminate, and finally assessed the M stage of the liver as being M0, M1, or Mx (indeterminate). All patients underwent surgical exploration including intraoperative US. Reference standard diagnosis was based on findings at surgery, intraoperative US, histopathology, and MDCT follow-up imaging. Differences among investigated modalities were analyzed using McNemar's test.
Results: The reference standard verified 109 (45 < or = 1 cm) hepatic lesions in 25 patients, including 65 (25 < or = 1 cm) metastases in 16 patients (M1). Regarding the 45 < or = 1 cm liver lesions, rates for detection were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for MDCT (80%, 36/45) and US-CT (77.8%, 35/45) than for US + CT (64.4%, 29/45); the rate for correct classification by US-CT (71.1%, 32/45) was significantly higher than for US + CT (48.9%, 22/45) and MDCT (31.1%, 14/45) (all P < 0.05). On patient-based analysis, specificity of MDCT (85.4%, 41/48) was significantly lower (P < 0.05) than for US-CT (97.9%, 47/48) and US + CT (93.7%, 45/48); the positive predictive value of MDCT (63.1%, 12/19) was not significantly different (P = 0.27) compared with US + CT (82.3%, 14/17) but significantly lower (P < 0.05) than for US-CT (93.7%, 15/16). In 13 patients (59 lesions) with only benign (stage M0) or coexistent benign and malignant lesions (stage M1), indeterminate lesion ratings and indeterminate liver stagings (Mx) occurred both significantly lower (P < 0.05) with US-CT (3.4%, 2/59; and 0%, 0/13) than with US + CT (11.9%, 7/59; and 23.1%, 3/13) or with MDCT (30.5%, 18/59; and 53.8%, 7/13).
Conclusions: Based on these initial diagnostic experiences, complementary US-CT fusion imaging of small CT-indeterminate liver lesions may have value in staging patients with colorectal cancer, focusing on patients who were likely to harbor only benign or coexisting benign and malignant liver lesions and in whom change of M staging would change the clinical management.
Similar articles
-
Detection of colo-rectal liver metastases: prospective comparison of contrast enhanced US, multidetector CT, PET/CT, and 1.5 Tesla MR with extracellular and reticulo-endothelial cell specific contrast agents.Abdom Imaging. 2010 Oct;35(5):511-21. doi: 10.1007/s00261-009-9555-2. Epub 2009 Jun 27. Abdom Imaging. 2010. PMID: 19562412
-
Can contrast-enhanced ultrasonography replace multidetector-computed tomography in the detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer?Eur J Radiol. 2009 Feb;69(2):308-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.023. Epub 2007 Dec 19. Eur J Radiol. 2009. PMID: 18068925
-
Use of liver magnetic resonance imaging after standard staging abdominopelvic computed tomography to evaluate newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.Ann Surg. 2015 Mar;261(3):480-6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000708. Ann Surg. 2015. PMID: 24866542
-
Liver metastases of colorectal cancer: US, CT or MR?Cancer Imaging. 2005 Nov 23;5 Spec No A(Spec No A):S149-56. doi: 10.1102/1470-7330.2005.0035. Cancer Imaging. 2005. PMID: 16361131 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Radiological staging of colorectal liver metastases.Surg Oncol. 2007 Jul;16(1):7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2007.04.001. Epub 2007 May 11. Surg Oncol. 2007. PMID: 17499498 Review.
Cited by
-
Real-Time MRI Navigated Ultrasound for Preoperative Tumor Evaluation in Breast Cancer Patients: Technique and Clinical Implementation.Korean J Radiol. 2016 Sep-Oct;17(5):695-705. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.695. Epub 2016 Aug 23. Korean J Radiol. 2016. PMID: 27587958 Free PMC article.
-
Image Fusion Involving Real-Time Transabdominal or Endoscopic Ultrasound for Gastrointestinal Malignancies: Review of Current and Future Applications.Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Dec 19;12(12):3218. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12123218. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36553225 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Staging colorectal cancer with the TNM 7(th): the presumption of innocence when applying the M category.World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Feb 28;19(8):1152-7. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i8.1152. World J Gastroenterol. 2013. PMID: 23483791 Free PMC article.
-
Creation and characterization of an ultrasound and CT phantom for noninvasive ultrasound thermometry calibration.IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014 Feb;61(2):502-12. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2013.2282775. Epub 2013 Sep 19. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014. PMID: 24107918 Free PMC article.
-
Subject-specific real-time respiratory liver motion compensation method for ultrasound-MRI/CT fusion imaging.Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2015 May;10(5):517-29. doi: 10.1007/s11548-014-1085-x. Epub 2014 Jun 14. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2015. PMID: 24927901
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical