分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
DWI联合MRI平扫对中晚期卵巢癌PDS手术方案制订的应用价值研究
杨庆玲 任静 韩晔 汪洋 肖遵健 郭燕 申凡

Cite this article as: YANG Q L, REN J, HAN Y, et al. Study on the application value of DWI combined with conventional MRI in making surgical plan of PDS for advanced ovarian cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(7): 73-77, 92.本文引用格式:杨庆玲, 任静, 韩晔, 等. DWI联合MRI平扫对中晚期卵巢癌PDS手术方案制订的应用价值研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2023, 14(7): 73-77, 92. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.07.013.


[摘要] 目的 探讨扩散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging, DWI)联合MRI平扫对中晚期卵巢癌患者进行初始肿瘤细胞减灭术(primary debulking surgery, PDS)手术方案制订的临床应用价值。材料与方法 回顾性分析我院2018年11月至2022年6月经病理证实的57例中晚期卵巢癌患者的影像学资料。所有患者均行全腹DWI、MRI平扫和增强计算机体层摄影(computed tomography, CT)检查,之后行PDS手术。参考FAGOTTI腹腔镜评分与腹膜癌指数(peritoneal cancer index, PCI),并结合本院多学科会诊讨论,确定本研究影像资料需观察的解剖区域,记录各区域是否有转移瘤,确定是否需相应科室协助手术。以术中记录和病理为金标准,比较DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT的诊断效能;采用χ2检验对比组间差异,比较两种影像检查对PDS手术方案制订的价值。Kappa检验分析两名放射科医生确定临床协助科室的一致性。结果 本组57例患者,术中记录不同手术方案的病例如下:妇科独自完成手术9例,需肝胆外科协助7例,消化外科协助5例,肝胆外科与消化外科共同协助23例,消化外科与泌尿外科共同协助5例,肝胆外科与泌尿外科共同协助1例,肝胆外科、消化外科及泌尿外科共同协助完成手术7例。术前DWI联合MRI平扫确定手术方案的符合率(38/57)显著高于增强CT(16/57)(P<0.001)。术中记录需消化外科、肝胆外科、泌尿外科协助的病例分别为40、38、13例,术前DWI联合MRI平扫确定需以上科室协助的病例分别为30、36、10例,准确度分别为80.70%,91.23%,87.72%;术前增强CT确定需以上科室协助的病例分别为18、24、5例,准确度分别为57.89%,64.91%,78.95%。需消化外科、肝胆外科协助的病例中,DWI联合MRI平扫的准确度均高于增强CT(χ2=4.762,P=0.027;χ2=4.050,P=0.041)。两名放射科医生在不同成像方式下确定临床协助科室的一致性范围是0.437~0.843,均为中等以上。结论 相较于增强CT,DWI联合MRI平扫对中晚期卵巢癌PDS手术方案制订的准确度更高,具有更好的临床意义。
[Abstract] Objective To investigate the clinical application value of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) combined with conventional MRI in making surgical plan of primary debulking surgery (PDS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.Materials and Methods The imaging data of 57 patients with advanced ovarian cancer confirmed by pathology in our hospital from November 2018 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent abdominal conventional MRI, DWI and enhanced computed tomography (CT), and then PDS surgery was performed. According to the FAGOTTI laparoscopic score and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) and combined with multiple disciplinary team discussion in our hospital, the anatomical areas to be observed in the imaging data of this study were determined. The presence of metastasis in each area was recorded and need for the assistance of corresponding departments was determined. Using intraoperative records and pathology as the gold standard, the diagnostic efficacy of DWI combined with conventional MRI and enhanced CT was compared. χ2 test was used to compare the statistical differences between the two groups, and to compare the formulation value of the two methods of imaging examinations in the PDS surgery plan for advanced ovarian cancer. Kappa analysis evaluated the consistency of two radiologists in determining clinical assistance departments.Results In this group of 57 patients, the cases with different surgical plans were recorded as follows: 9 cases of gynecologic surgery alone, 7 cases required the assistance of hepatobiliary surgery department, 5 cases required the assistance of digestive surgery department, 23 cases required the assistance of both liver and gallbladder surgery and digestive surgery department, 5 cases required the assistance of both digestion and urology surgery department, 1 case required the assistance with hepatobiliary surgery and urology department, liver and gallbladder surgery, digestive surgery and urology common assist with surgery in 7 cases. The coincidence of preoperative DWI combined with MRI (38/57) was significantly higher than that of enhanced CT (16/57) (P<0.001). Intraoperative records showed that 40, 38 and 13 cases needed assistance from digestive surgery, hepatobiliary surgery and urology surgery, respectively. Preoperative DWI combined with MRI plain scan confirmed that 30, 36 and 10 cases needed assistance from above departments, with accuracy of 80.70%, 91.23% and 87.72%, respectively. Preoperative enhanced CT showed 18, 24 and 5 cases from above departments, with the accuracy of 57.89%, 64.91% and 78.95%, respectively. The accuracy of DWI combined with conventional MRI was higher than that of contrast-enhanced CT (χ2=4.762, P=0.027; χ2=4.050, P=0.041) in patients requiring digestive surgery and hepatobiliary surgery. The consistency range of clinical assistance departments determined by two radiologists under different imaging methods was 0.437-0.843, both of which were above medium.Conclusions Compared with enhanced CT, DWI combined with conventional MRI has higher accuracy and better clinical significance in making surgical plan of PDS for advanced ovarian cancer.
[关键词] 卵巢癌;初始肿瘤细胞减灭术;磁共振成像;计算机体层成像
[Keywords] ovarian cancer;primary debulking surgery;magnetic resonance imaging;computed tomography

杨庆玲    任静 *   韩晔    汪洋    肖遵健    郭燕    申凡   

空军军医大学西京医院放射科,西安 710032

通信作者:任静,E-mail:jrenmm@126.com

作者贡献声明:杨庆玲、韩晔主要负责数据分析、论文撰写;汪洋、肖遵健主要负责文献查阅、对结果的解释,对学术内容的重要方面进行了关键修改;郭燕、申凡主要负责影像学数据的采集,对学术内容的重要方面进行了关键修改;任静主要负责实验设计,以及对文章进行润色修改,并获得了陕西省自然科学基础研究计划重点项目、陕西省科技创新团队项目基金的资助;全体作者都同意发表最后的修改稿,同意对本研究的所有方面负责,确保本研究的准确性和诚信。


基金项目: 陕西省自然科学基础研究计划重点项目 2021JZ-25 陕西省科技创新团队项目 2021TD-39
收稿日期:2023-02-13
接受日期:2023-06-28
中图分类号:R445.2  R737.31 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.07.013
本文引用格式:杨庆玲, 任静, 韩晔, 等. DWI联合MRI平扫对中晚期卵巢癌PDS手术方案制订的应用价值研究[J]. 磁共振成像, 2023, 14(7): 73-77, 92. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.07.013.

0 前言

       卵巢癌是常见的妇科恶性肿瘤,其发病率和死亡率逐年上升[1]。由于早期常无典型症状,多数患者就诊时已属中晚期,五年生存率仅30%[2]。目前,中晚期卵巢癌主要治疗方式是细胞减灭术或联合新辅助化疗,前者包括初始肿瘤细胞减灭术(primary debulking surgery, PDS)和中间性肿瘤细胞减灭术[3]。其中,PDS的彻底性是卵巢癌最主要的独立预后因素[4]。当PDS达到病灶完全切除(R0切除)时,患者五年生存率可达50%[5]。但在积极手术治疗的三级医院(即有条件可以进行全面减瘤术的医院),仅有32.8%的病例能真正实现R0切除[6]。因腹盆腔广泛转移,术中常需肝胆外科、消化外科、泌尿外科等相关科室与妇科通力合作[7],才能实现“真正意义上的R0切除”。因此,术前制订最佳手术方案对实现R0切除至关重要,而这在很大程度上依赖于影像学对病变范围及位置的准确评估。欧洲泌尿生殖放射学会(European Society of Urogenital Radiology, ESUR)指南[8]推荐,中晚期卵巢癌患者术前影像评估,首选腹盆腔增强计算机体层摄影(computed tomography, CT)。但CT软组织分辨率低,对小病灶检出率不高[9],而MRI软组织分辨率高、无辐射,同时扩散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging, DWI)已用于指导结直肠癌腹膜转移的治疗[10, 11]。基于此,本研究将探讨DWI联合MRI平扫对中晚期卵巢癌PDS手术方案制订的临床应用价值。

1 材料与方法

1.1 一般资料

       本研究遵守《赫尔辛基宣言》,经空军军医大学西京医院伦理委员会批准,免除受试者知情同意,批准文号:KY20203055-1号。本研究为单中心研究,回顾性分析我院2018年11月至2022年6月的卵巢癌患者的影像学资料。纳入标准:(1)经病理证实符合2014年国际妇产科联盟(International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO)ⅡB~Ⅳ期的卵巢癌患者;(2)进行了PDS;(3)术前均行全腹DWI、MRI平扫与增强CT检查;(4)手术与影像检查间隔≤2周。排除标准:(1)合并其他恶性肿瘤;(2)术前接受过放、化疗;(3)临床或影像资料不全。

1.2 仪器与方法

1.2.1 MRI扫描

       采用美国GE Healthcare Discovery 750 3.0 T MRI扫描仪,8通道腹部相控阵线圈。检查前禁食6~8 h,并行肠道准备。嘱患者仰卧位,头先进,扫描前行呼气屏气训练。扫描范围:上至膈顶水平,下至耻骨联合下缘水平。扫描序列及参数见表1

表1  MRI扫描序列及参数
Tab. 1  MRI scan sequence and parameters

1.2.2 CT扫描

       采用美国GE Discovery 750 HD CT扫描仪,检查前禁食4 h,并行肠道准备。患者取仰卧位,双手上举,吸气后屏气。扫描范围:上缘至膈肌顶水平,下缘至耻骨联合水平。扫描参数:管电压120 kV,管电流根据不同部位自动调控,层厚5 mm,层间距5 mm,矩阵512×512。重建算法:H31 medium +。增强扫描:使用高压注射器经肘静脉以3.5 mL/s的速率推注1.5 mL/kg的对比剂(碘佛醇,江苏恒瑞医药股份有限公司,中国),注射后28~32 s、60~65 s、180~240 s分别行动脉期、静脉期、延迟期扫描。

1.3 图像分析

       参考FAGOTTI等[12, 13]腹腔镜评分及PCI[14],并结合本院术前多学科会诊讨论,确定本研究影像需观察的解剖区域,由两名分别具有20年和10年腹部疾病影像诊断经验的副主任医师和主治医师双盲法阅片,记录各区域是否有转移瘤、是否需相应科室协助手术,意见不一致时,协商后达成一致。

       本研究根据肿瘤转移区域进行相关手术科室分工。(1)消化外科:转移病变累及直肠、乙状结肠,升、横、降结肠,回盲部、阑尾、小肠壁、胃和十二指肠、小网膜及小网膜囊、大网膜、腹腔腹膜、肠系膜;(2)肝胆外科:转移病变累及膈肌腹膜、肝圆、镰状韧带、胆囊窝、肝肾隐窝、肝门部、脾周、胰腺、肝、脾实质;(3)泌尿外科:转移病变累及输尿管、膀胱。

       转移瘤的影像诊断[15]:(1)空腔脏器有浆膜壁或腔内侵犯;(2)实质脏器有异常信号或密度,腹膜局限性或弥漫性增厚;(3)以上(1)和(2)两种情况在DWI呈高信号,不包括正常原因(含水多的引起T2穿透效应等)导致的高信号,表观扩散系数(apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC)呈低信号,判为转移;(4)以上(1)和(2)两种情况在增强CT有不同程度强化,判为转移,无法确定的可疑病变,借助多平面重建图像观察。

1.4 统计学分析

       使用SPSS 23.0软件,以手术记录和病理为金标准,计算DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT对确定相关科室的敏感度、特异度、准确度、约登指数、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。计数资料以n(%)表示,组间比较行χ2检验,配对资料行McNemar检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。两名放射科医师阅片结果的一致性比较行Kappa检验,Kappa值及意义:0.81~1.00一致性极好、0.61~0.80一致性较好、0.41~0.60一致性中等、0.21~0.40一致性较差、0.00~0.20一致性极差。

2 结果

2.1 入组患者一般资料

       根据纳排标准,本研究最终纳入中晚期卵巢癌患者57例,年龄31~79(55.1±9.6)岁。影像学检查与手术间隔1~14(8.0±3.7)天。病理诊断类型:浆液性腺癌44例,黏液性腺癌7例,透明细胞癌2例,未分化癌4例。FIGO分期:ⅡB期7例,Ⅲ期29例,Ⅳ期21例。

2.2 两名放射科医师确定协助科室的一致性比较

       Kappa检验表明,两名放射科医生通过DWI联合MRI平扫提示需肝胆外科协助的一致性极好,需消化外科协助的一致性较好,需泌尿外科协助的一致性中等,通过增强CT提示需肝胆外科协助的一致性较好,需消化外科、泌尿外科协助的一致性中等。详见表2

表2  两种成像模式下两名放射科医生确定协助科室的一致性比较
Tab. 2  Comparison of consistency between two radiologists in determining assistance departments under two imaging modes

2.3 术前DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT确定手术方案的符合率比较

       术中记录显示不同手术方案的病例如下:妇科独自完成手术9例,肝胆外科协助7例,消化外科协助5例,肝胆外科与消化外科共同协助23例,消化外科与泌尿外科共同协助5例,肝胆外科与泌尿外科共同协助1例,肝胆外科、消化外科及泌尿外科共同完成手术7例。术前DWI联合MRI平扫确定手术方案的符合率(38/57)明显高于增强CT(16/57),差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。

2.4 DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT确定协助科室的效能

       本组卵巢癌患者PDS的方案,除妇科外,另需消化外科、肝胆外科、泌尿外科协助的病例分别为40、38、13例,而术前DWI联合MRI平扫确定需以上科室协助的病例分别为30、36、10例,术前增强CT确定需以上科室协助的病例分别为18、24、5例。两种影像检查确定手术协助科室的敏感度、特异度、准确度、约登指数、阳性预测值、阴性预测值见表3

表3  DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT确定手术协助科室的效能
Tab. 3  DWI combined with conventional MRI and enhanced CT to determine the effectiveness of surgical assistance department

2.5 DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT对具体转移部位的检出率

       在消化外科及肝胆外科协助的病例中,DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT之间差异有统计学意义(P=0.027和P=0.041;图12)。在泌尿外科协助的病例中,两者之间差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.455,P=0.227)。DWI联合MRI平扫对以上三科室具体转移部位的检出率高于增强CT。详见表4

图1  女,33岁,国际妇产科联盟(FIGO)Ⅳ期卵巢癌,肝胆外科协助完成完全切除(R0切除)。1A:T2加权成像(T2WI)示右侧肝肾隐窝条片样稍高信号影(箭);1B:扩散加权成像(DWI)该病灶呈高信号影(箭);1C:表观扩散系数(ADC)相应部位呈低信号(箭);1D:增强CT示该区病灶显示不清。
图2  女,57岁,FIGO Ⅳ期卵巢癌,消化外科协助完成R0切除。2A:T2WI示回盲部团块样等信号影(箭);2B:DWI示病灶呈高信号(箭);2C:ADC示病灶呈低信号(箭);2D:增强CT示该病灶与周围正常软组织密度相近,显示不清。
Fig. 1  A 33-year-old woman with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Ⅳ ovarian cancer is assisted by hepatobiliary surgery with R0 resection. 1A: T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) shows a sliver of slightly hypersignal shadow (arrow) in the right hepatorenal recess; 1B: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) shows high signal shadow (arrow); 1C: Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) shows low signal (arrow) in the corresponding part; 1D: Enhanced CT shows indistinct lesions in this area.
Fig. 2  A 57-year-old woman with FIGO Ⅳ ovarian cancer is assisted by digestive surgery with R0 resection. 2A: T2WI shows equal-signal shadow like mass in the blind part of the ileum (arrow); 2B: DWI shows hypersignal (arrow); 2C: ADC shows low signal in the lesion (arrow); 2D: Enhanced CT shows that the lesion had a similar density to the surrounding normal soft tissue.
表4  DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT对具体转移部位的检出率
Tab. 4  Detection rate of DWI combined with MRI plain scan and enhanced CT for metastatic tumors at specific anatomical sites

3 讨论

       本研究参照FAGOTTI腹腔镜评分及PCI,并结合临床实践,确定更符合手术需求的影像观察部位,回顾性分析DWI联合MRI平扫与增强CT指导临床制订手术方案的效能。研究结果表明在中晚期卵巢癌PDS手术方案的制订中,DWI联合MRI平扫的指导效能更高。既往很少有研究探讨影像对卵巢癌PDS手术方案制订的价值,且本研究首次提出了以临床协助科室为目标分析两种影像检查,能够协助临床更好地实现精准医疗。

3.1 卵巢癌患者PDS前的影像学检查

       根据ESUR指南[8],卵巢癌患者在PDS前首选腹盆腔增强CT。然而,最近的一项Meta分析显示[16],CT诊断腹腔转移瘤的综合敏感度、特异度和诊断优势比均低于PET/CT和DWI-MRI检查。此外,BOZKURT等[17]认为,CT对位于肠系膜和肠表面等处≤1 cm的转移灶,敏感度仅25%~50%,这与本组增强CT对消化系统转移瘤的敏感度(45.00%)一致。近年来,动态对比增强(dynamic contrast-enhanced, DCE)MRI常用来区分良恶性病变,且诊断效能较高,已广泛用于肿瘤诊断和治疗监测[18, 19, 20]。但是钆螯合物的潴留对组织器官有一定的潜在影响,尤其在肾功受损患者中有发生肾源性系统性纤维化的风险[21]。且DCE对于腹膜和浆膜的小病变诊断价值较低[22]。作为目前唯一无创检测活体水分子运动的功能MRI序列,DWI能够反映水分子扩散和组织灌注信息,敏感度高,弥补了增强CT诊断肠系膜等处转移瘤的局限性[23, 24],也降低了DCE对腹膜和浆膜小病灶的漏诊率。本研究中,DWI联合MRI平扫诊断卵巢癌转移瘤的准确度明显高于增强CT。

3.2 DWI联合MRI平扫在卵巢癌PDS手术方案制订中的价值

       研究报道DWI联合MRI平扫对确定卵巢癌转移瘤的具体解剖部位有较高价值[25, 26, 27],这与本研究结果一致。但既往研究大多按照PCI划分腹部为13区,分析每个区域的诊断性能,没有继续探讨对制订手术方案的价值,而本研究填补了这一区域的空白。

       本研究DWI联合MRI平扫提示消化外科的敏感度为75.00%,特异度为94.12%,敏感度较低的原因可能是部分患者检查前肠道准备不充分,含水多的肠腔引起T2穿透效应,在DWI上呈高信号,覆盖了部分微小病变的显示。在需肝胆外科协助的病例中,DWI联合MRI平扫的敏感度和特异度(94.74%、84.21%)均明显高于增强CT(63.16%、68.42%),这是因为在CT上,转移瘤与邻近软组织密度接近,限制了膈肌、韧带等区域病变的显示。而MRI的高软组织分辨率使其敏感度高达94.74%,特别是肝、脾实质脏器(11/11)。抑脂抑水序列更是减少了腹水对膈肌腹膜粟粒样转移瘤的影响,故而对该处病变的诊断价值较高(28/30)。已有多项研究[28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33]表明DWI对膀胱肿瘤诊断及预测有重要价值,DWI已常规用于膀胱癌膀胱影像报告和数据系统(Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System, VI-RADS)分级,是诊断其浸润程度的重要影像检查。本组DWI联合MRI平扫诊断输尿管或膀胱受累的敏感度和准确度均高于增强CT,故当DWI联合MRI平扫提示有输尿管或膀胱受累时,妇科医生需预约泌尿外科行多学科会诊并共同完成手术。

3.3 局限性

       本研究存在一定局限性:(1)本研究虽然根据肿瘤转移区域进行相关科室分工,但不同医师之间卵巢癌手术理念可能存在差异,一定程度上也会影响手术方案的制订;(2)在图像分析方面,因部分患者腹腔粟粒样转移瘤太小,在诊断时难免受主观因素影响,今后应扩大样本量,积累更多经验。

4 结论

       综上所述,DWI联合MRI平扫是卵巢癌行PDS前重要的影像学方法,较增强CT能更好地帮助临床医生制订准确可行的手术方案,值得推广应用。

[1]
黄海涛, 陈姝玉, 耿旭, 等. 2005—2016年中国女性卵巢癌发病及死亡趋势研究[J]. 中国全科医学, 2022, 25(8): 990-994. DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.01.606.
HUANG H T, CHEN S Y, GENG X, et al. Ovarian cancer in China: trends in incidence and mortality, 2005—2016[J]. Chin Gen Pract, 2022, 25(8): 990-994. DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.01.606.
[2]
SIEGEL R L, MILLER K D, JEMAL A. Cancer statistics, 2020[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70(1): 7-30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21590.
[3]
卢淮武, 吴斌, 许妙纯, 等. 《2022 NCCN卵巢癌包括输卵管癌及原发性腹膜癌临床实践指南(第1版)》解读[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2022, 38(3): 310-318. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2022030113.
LU H W, WU B, XU M C, et al. Interpretation of 2022 NCCN clinical practice guidelines to ovarian cancer including carcinoma of fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma(1^(st) edition)[J]. Chin J Pract Gynecol Obstet, 2022, 38(3): 310-318. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2022030113.
[4]
QUERLEU D, PLANCHAMP F, CHIVA L, et al. European society of gynaecological oncology (ESGO) guidelines for ovarian cancer surgery[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2017, 27(7): 1534-1542. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001041.
[5]
黄世明, 吴思雨, 孙永锋, 等. 不同影像诊断方法对卵巢癌腹膜转移诊断价值的系统评价[J]. 中华介入放射学电子杂志, 2021, 9(2): 177-182. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2021.02.011.
HUANG S M, WU S Y, SUN Y F, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for peritoneal metastasis of ovarian cancer[J]. Chin J Interv Radiol Electron Ed, 2021, 9(2): 177-182. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5782.2021.02.011.
[6]
WIMBERGER P, LEHMANN N, KIMMIG R, et al. Prognostic factors for complete debulking in advanced ovarian cancer and its impact on survival. An exploratory analysis of a prospectively randomized phase Ⅲ study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR)[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2007, 106(1): 69-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.02.026.
[7]
周琦, 龙行涛. 多学科团队在国内妇科恶性肿瘤中的应用与展望[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2020, 36(1): 32-35. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2020010108.
ZHOU Q, LONG X T. Application and prospect of multidisciplinary team in gynecological malignant tumor in China[J]. China Ind Econ, 2020, 36(1): 32-35. DOI: 10.19538/j.fk2020010108.
[8]
FORSTNER R, SALA E, KINKEL K, et al. ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up[J]. Eur Radiol, 2010, 20(12): 2773-2780. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1886-4.
[9]
ESQUIVEL J, CHUA T C, STOJADINOVIC A, et al. Accuracy and clinical relevance of computed tomography scan interpretation of peritoneal cancer index in colorectal cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis: a multi-institutional study[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2010, 102(6): 565-570. DOI: 10.1002/jso.21601.
[10]
VAN 'T SANT I, VAN EDEN W J, ENGBERSEN M P, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI assessment of the peritoneal cancer index before cytoreductive surgery[J]. Br J Surg, 2019, 106(4): 491-498. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10989.
[11]
DONG L, LI K, PENG T S. Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging/magnetic resonance imaging for peritoneal metastasis from malignant tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J/OL]. Medicine, 2021, 100(5): e24251 [2022-12-20]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592867/. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024251.
[12]
FAGOTTI A, FANFANI F, LUDOVISI M, et al. Role of laparoscopy to assess the chance of optimal cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: a pilot study[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2005, 96(3): 729-735. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.11.031.
[13]
FAGOTTI A, FERRANDINA G, FANFANI F, et al. A laparoscopy-based score to predict surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: a pilot study[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2006, 13(8): 1156-1161. DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2006.08.021.
[14]
JACQUET P, SUGARBAKER P H. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis[J]. Cancer Treat Res, 1996, 82: 359-374. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-1247-5_23.
[15]
SAHDEV A. CT in ovarian cancer staging: how to review and report with emphasis on abdominal and pelvic disease for surgical planning[J/OL]. Cancer Imaging, 2016, 16(1): 19 [2022-12-21]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27484100/. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-016-0076-2.
[16]
VAN 'T SANT I, ENGBERSEN M P, BHAIROSING P A, et al. Diagnostic performance of imaging for the detection of peritoneal metastases: a meta-analysis[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(6): 3101-3112. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06524-x.
[17]
BOZKURT M, DOGANAY S, KANTARCI M, et al. Comparison of peritoneal tumor imaging using conventional MR imaging and diffusion-weighted MR imaging with different b values[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2011, 80(2): 224-228. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.004.
[18]
WANG Q Z, DONG H, ZHOU P. Application value of combined detection of DCE-MRI and serum tumor markers HE4, Ki67, and HK10 in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer[J/OL]. Contrast Media Mol Imaging, 2022, 2022: 1533261 [2022-12-21]. http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35815060. DOI: 10.1155/2022/1533261.
[19]
SONG X L, REN J L, ZHAO D, et al. Radiomics derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI pharmacokinetic protocol features: the value of precision diagnosis ovarian neoplasms[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(1): 368-378. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07112-0.
[20]
WEI M X, BO F, CAO H, et al. Diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for malignant ovarian tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Acta Radiol, 2021, 62(7): 966-978. DOI: 10.1177/0284185120944916.
[21]
BLOMQVIST L, NORDBERG G F, NURCHI V M, et al. Gadolinium in medical imaging-usefulness, toxic reactions and possible countermeasures-a review[J/OL]. Biomolecules, 2022, 12(6): 742 [2022-12-21]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35740867/. DOI: 10.3390/biom12060742.
[22]
LOW R N, GURNEY J. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in the oncology patient: value of breathhold DWI compared to unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MRI[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2007, 25(4): 848-858. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20864.
[23]
MICHIELSEN K, VERGOTE I, OP DE BEECK K, et al. Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a clinical feasibility study in comparison to CT and FDG-PET/CT[J]. Eur Radiol, 2014, 24(4): 889-901. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-3083-8.
[24]
RIZZO S, DE PIANO F, BUSCARINO V, et al. Pre-operative evaluation of epithelial ovarian cancer patients: role of whole body diffusion weighted imaging MR and CT scans in the selection of patients suitable for primary debulking surgery. A single-centre study[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2020, 123: 108786 [2022-12-21]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31862634. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108786.
[25]
MICHIELSEN K, DRESEN R, VANSLEMBROUCK R, et al. Diagnostic value of whole body diffusion-weighted MRI compared to computed tomography for pre-operative assessment of patients suspected for ovarian cancer[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2017, 83: 88-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.06.010.
[26]
ESPADA M, GARCIA-FLORES J R, JIMENEZ M, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma[J]. Eur Radiol, 2013, 23(9): 2636-2642. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2837-7.
[27]
LEE E Y P, AN H, TSE K Y, et al. Molecular imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis in ovarian carcinoma[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2020, 215(2): 305-312. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22621.
[28]
PANEBIANCO V, DE BERARDINIS E, BARCHETTI G, et al. An evaluation of morphological and functional multi-parametric MRI sequences in classifying non-muscle and muscle invasive bladder cancer[J]. Eur Radiol, 2017, 27(9): 3759-3766. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4758-3.
[29]
PANEBIANCO V, NARUMI Y, ALTUN E, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for bladder cancer: development of VI-RADS (vesical imaging-reporting and data system)[J]. Eur Urol, 2018, 74(3): 294-306. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.029.
[30]
SHALABY E A, MOHAMED A R, ELKAMMASH T H, et al. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of urinary bladder cancer[J]. Curr Urol, 2022, 16(3): 127-135. DOI: 10.1097/CU9.0000000000000128.
[31]
DE PERROT T, SADJO ZOUA C, GLESSGEN C G, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the genitourinary system[J/OL]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(7): 1921 [2022-12-21]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35407528/. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11071921.
[32]
LI Q, CAO B H, TAN Q X, et al. Prediction of muscle invasion of bladder cancer: a comparison between DKI and conventional DWI[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2021, 136: 109522 [2022-09-18]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33434860/. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109522.
[33]
PIZZI A D, MASTRODICASA D, MARCHIONI M, et al. Bladder cancer: do we need contrast injection for MRI assessment of muscle invasion? A prospective multi-reader VI-RADS approach[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(6): 3874-3883. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07473-6.

上一篇 基于磁共振T2WI影像组学预测急性胰腺炎后糖尿病的价值
下一篇 表观扩散系数在术前预测子宫内膜癌肌层浸润、Ki-67和P53表达水平的临床价值
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2