Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discrimination of metastatic from non-metastatic mesorectal lymph nodes in rectal cancer using quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

  • Published:
Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology [Medical Sciences] Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Preoperative detection of lymph nodes (LNs) metastasis is always highly challenging for radiologists nowadays. The utility of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (QDCE-MRI) in identifying LNs metastasis is not well understood. In the present study, 59 patients with histologically proven rectal carcinoma underwent preoperative QDCE-MRI. The short axis diameter ratio, long axis diameter ratio, short-to-long axis diameter ratio and QDEC-MRI parameters (Ktrans, Kep, fPV and Ve) values were compared between the non-metastatic (n=44) and metastatic (n=35) LNs groups based on pathological examination. Compared with the non-metastatic group, the metastatic group exhibited significantly higher short axis diameter (7.558±0.668 mm vs. 5.427±0.285 mm), Ktrans (0.483±0.198 min-1 vs. 0.218±0.116 min-1) and Ve (0.399±0.118 vs. 0.203±0.096) values (all P<0.05). The short-to-long axis diameter ratio, long axis diameter ratio, Kep and fPV values did not show significant differences between the two groups. In conclusion, our results showed that for LNs larger than 5 mm in rectal cancer, there are distinctive differences in the Ktrans and Ve values between the metastatic and non-metastatic LNs, suggesting that QDCE-MRI may be potentially helpful in identifying LNs status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figs. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 2012 (www.cancer.gov)

  2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN guidelines for treatment of cancer by site: rectal cancer, V.1.2016. Available at https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login. spx? ReturnURL=https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Accessed May 1,2016

  3. Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, et al. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology, 2004,232(3):773–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM, Maas M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients: recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol, 2013,23(9): 2522–2531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Niu XK, Bhetuwal A, Das S, et al. Meta-analysis of quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiating benign and malignant pancreatic masses. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci, 2014,34(6):950–956

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu K, Xie P, Peng W, et al. Assessment of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from other pancreatic solid lesions. Comput Assist Tomogr, 2014,38(5):681–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Li L, Wang K, Sun X, et al. Parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI as imaging markers for angiogenesis and proliferation in human breast cancer. Med Sci Monit, 2015,21(2):376–382

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Alberda WJ, Dassen HP, Dwarkasing RS, et al. Prediction of tumor stage and lymph node involvement with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI after chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2013,28(4):573–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vag T, Slotta-Huspenina J, Rosenberg R, et al. Computerized analysis of enhancement kinetics for preoperative lymph node staging in rectal cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Imaging, 2014,38 (6):845–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamer S, Sigal R, Lassau N, et al. Radiologic assessment of intranodal vascularity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Correlation with histologic vascular density. Invest Radiol, 1996,31(11):673–679

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang B, Wong CS, Whitcher B, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for characterising nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of semiquantitative and quantitative parameters and correlation with tumour stage. Eur Radiol, 2013,23(6):1495–1502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Feng C, Gao P, Qiu X, et al. Prediction of radiosensitivity in primary central nervous system germ cell tumors using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Chin J Cancer Res, 2015,27(3):231–248

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chikui T, Kitamoto E, Kami Y, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of oral squamous cell carcinoma: a preliminary study of the correlations between quantitative parameters and the clinical stage. Br J Radiol, 2015,88(1050):20140814

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yi B, Kang DK, Yoon D, et al. Is there any correlation between model-based perfusion parameters and model-free parameters of time-signal intensity curve on dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in breast cancer patients? Eur Radiol, 2014,24(5):1089–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang WD, Li CX, Luo RG, et al. Experimental study of VX2 rabbits metastatic and inflammatory adenopathy by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Chinese), 2012,92(9):596–599

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abdel Razek AA, Gaballa G. Role of perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in cervical lymphadenopathy. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2011,35(1):21–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fischbein NJ, Noworolski SM, Henry RG, et al. Assessment of metastatic cervical adenopathy using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol, 2003, 24(3):301–311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen YB, Liao J, Xie R, et al. Discrimination of metastatic from hyperplastic pelvic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging, 2011,36(1):102–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Amarnath J, Sangeeta T, Mehta SB. Role of quantitative pharmacokinetic parameter transfer constant: Ktrans in the characterization of breast lesions on MRI. Indian J Radiol Imaging, 2013,23(1):19–25

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lei J, Tian Y, Zhu SC, et al. Preliminary study of IVIM-DWI and DCE-MRI in early diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2015,19(18):3345–3350

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Daldrup-Link HE, Shames DM, Wendland M, et al. Comparison of Gadomer-17 and gadopentetate dimeglumine for differentiation of benign from malignant breast tumors with MR imaging. Acad Radiol, 2000,7(11):934–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park JS, Jang YJ, Choi GS, et al. Accuracy of preoperative MRI in predicting pathology stage in rectal cancers: node-for-node matched histopathology validation of MRI features. Dis Colon Rectum, 2014,57(1):32–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Hunan Cancer Hospital & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China

    Xiao-ping Yu  (于小平), Lu Wen  (文 露), Jing Hou  (侯 静) & Qiang Lu  (卢 强)

  2. Department of Radiology, the Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China

    Xiao-ping Yu  (于小平)

  3. Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Translational Radiation Oncology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, 410013, China

    Xiao-ping Yu  (于小平) & Hui Wang  (王 晖)

Authors
  1. Xiao-ping Yu  (于小平)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu Wen  (文 露)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jing Hou  (侯 静)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hui Wang  (王 晖)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qiang Lu  (卢 强)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-ping Yu  (于小平).

Additional information

Both authors contributed equally to this work.

This study was supported by the Provincial Key Clinical Specialty (Medical Imaging) Development Program from Health and Family Planning Commission of Hunan Province, China (No. 2015/43), the Health and Family Planning Commission of Hunan Province, China (No. B2016060), and the National Key Clinical Specialty (Oncology Department) Development Program from National Health and Family Planning Commission of China (No. 2013/544).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, Xp., Wen, L., Hou, J. et al. Discrimination of metastatic from non-metastatic mesorectal lymph nodes in rectal cancer using quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. [Med. Sci.] 36, 594–600 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-016-1631-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-016-1631-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation