Tumor size measurements of pancreatic cancer with neoadjuvant therapy based on RECIST guidelines: is MRI as effective as CT?

Cancer Imaging

Research Article

Yufei Chen¹  Yisha Gao²  Jianping Lu³  Panpan Yang³  Jun Wang³  Zhen Wang³  Chengwei Shao³  Yun Bian³  Chao Ma⁴  Kuanzheng Mao⁵ 

[1] College of Electronic and Information Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China;Department of Pathology, Changhai Hospital of Shanghai, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China;Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital of Shanghai, Naval Medical University, No. 168 Changhai Road, 200433, Shanghai, China;Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital of Shanghai, Naval Medical University, No. 168 Changhai Road, 200433, Shanghai, China;College of Electronic and Information Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China;Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital of Shanghai, Naval Medical University, No. 168 Changhai Road, 200433, Shanghai, China;School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, China;

关键词: Pancreatic cancer;    Neoadjuvant therapy;    CT;    MRI;    Tumor size;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40644-023-00528-z

 received in 2022-10-10, accepted in 2023-01-11,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

ObjectivesTo compare tumor size measurements using CT and MRI in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with neoadjuvant therapy (NAT).MethodsThis study included 125 histologically confirmed PC patients who underwent NAT. The tumor sizes from CT and MRI before and after NAT were compared by using Bland–Altman analyses and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Variations in tumor size estimates between MRI and CT in relationship to different factors, including NAT methods (chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy), tumor locations (head/neck, body/tail), tumor regression grade (TRG) levels (0–2, 3), N stages (N0, N1/N2) and tumor resection margin status (R0, R1), were further analysed. The McNemar test was used to compare the efficacy of NAT evaluations based on the CT and MRI measurements according to RECIST 1.1 criteria.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the median tumor sizes from CT and MRI before and after NAT (P = 0.44 and 0.39, respectively). There was excellent agreement in tumor size between MRI and CT, with mean size differences and limits of agreement (LOAs) of 1.5 [-9.6 to 12.7] mm and 0.9 [-12.6 to 14.5] mm before NAT (ICC, 0.93) and after NAT (ICC, 0.91), respectively. For all the investigated factors, there was good or excellent correlation (ICC, 0.76 to 0.95) for tumor sizes between CT and MRI. There was no significant difference in the efficacy evaluation of NAT between CT and MRI measurements (P = 1.0).ConclusionMRI and CT have similar performance in assessing PC tumor size before and after NAT.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2023

【 图 表 】

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq337.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq333.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq330.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq328.gif