Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography for Resectability Assessment in Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

  • Jeongin Yoo (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jeong Min Lee (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Hyo-Jin Kang (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jae Seok Bae (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Sun Kyung Jeon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jeong Hee Yoon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2023.04.22
  • Accepted : 2023.07.31
  • Published : 2023.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for evaluating the resectability in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included treatment-naïve patients with pathologically confirmed eCCA, who underwent both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP using extracellular contrast media between January 2015 and December 2020. Among the 214 patients (146 males; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 9 years) included, 121 (56.5%) had perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. R0 resection was achieved in 108 of the 153 (70.6%) patients who underwent curative-intent surgery. Four fellowship-trained radiologists independently reviewed the findings of both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP to assess the local tumor extent and distant metastasis for determining resectability. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were compared using clinical, surgical, and pathological findings as reference standards. The interobserver agreement of resectability was evaluated using Fleiss kappa (κ). Results: No significant differences were observed between CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP in the pooled AUC (0.753 vs. 0.767), sensitivity (84.7% [366/432] vs. 90.3% [390/432]), and specificity (52.6% [223/424] vs. 51.4% [218/424]) (P > 0.05 for all). The AUC for determining resectability was higher when CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were reviewed together than when CECT was reviewed alone in patients with discrepancies between the imaging modalities or with indeterminate resectability (0.798 [0.754-0.841] vs. 0.753 [0.697-0.808], P = 0.014). The interobserver agreement for overall resectability was fair for both CECT (κ = 0.323) and CE-MRI with MRCP (κ = 0.320), without a significant difference (P = 0.884). Conclusion: CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP showed no significant differences in the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement in determining the resectability in patients with eCCA.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We appreciate the statistical advice from the Medical Research Collaborating Center at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine.

References

  1. Joo I, Lee JM, Yoon JH. Imaging diagnosis of intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: recent advances and challenges. Radiology 2018;288:7-13 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171187
  2. Valle JW, Borbath I, Khan SA, Huguet F, Gruenberger T, Arnold D; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Biliary cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2016;27(suppl 5):v28-v37 https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw324
  3. Klempnauer J, Ridder GJ, Werner M, Weimann A, Pichlmayr R. What constitutes long-term survival after surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma? Cancer 1997;79:26-34 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970101)79:1<26::AID-CNCR5>3.0.CO;2-K
  4. Blechacz B, Komuta M, Roskams T, Gores GJ. Clinical diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;8:512-522 https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2011.131
  5. Ruys AT, van Beem BE, Engelbrecht MR, Bipat S, Stoker J, Van Gulik TM. Radiological staging in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2012;85:1255-1262 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/88405305
  6. Lee DH, Kim B, Lee ES, Kim HJ, Min JH, Lee JM, et al. Radiologic evaluation and structured reporting form for extrahepatic bile duct cancer: 2019 consensus recommendations from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:41-62 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0803
  7. Park HS, Lee JM, Choi JY, Lee MW, Kim HJ, Han JK, et al. Preoperative evaluation of bile duct cancer: MRI combined with MR cholangiopancreatography versus MDCT with direct cholangiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:396-405 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2310
  8. Ryoo I, Lee JM, Park HS, Han JK, Choi BI. Preoperative assessment of longitudinal extent of bile duct cancers using MDCT with multiplanar reconstruction and minimum intensity projections: comparison with MR cholangiography. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2020-2026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.007
  9. D'Antuono F, De Luca S, Mainenti PP, Mollica C, Camera L, Galizia G, et al. Comparison between multidetector CT and high-field 3T MR imaging in diagnostic and tumour extension evaluation of patients with cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Cancer 2020;51:534-544 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-019-00276-z
  10. Raghavan K, Jeffrey RB, Patel BN, DiMaio MA, Willmann JK, Olcott EW. MDCT diagnosis of perineural invasion involving the celiac plexus in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: preliminary observations and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W578-W584 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14607
  11. Yamada Y, Mori H, Hijiya N, Matsumoto S, Takaji R, Kiyonaga M, et al. Extrahepatic bile duct cancer: invasion of the posterior hepatic plexuses--evaluation using multidetector CT. Radiology 2012;263:419-428 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111024
  12. Takayasu K, Moriyama N, Muramatsu Y, Shima Y, Goto H, Yamada T. Intrahepatic portal vein branches studied by percutaneous transhepatic portography. Radiology 1985;154:31-36 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.154.1.3964948
  13. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360-363
  14. Lee DH, Kim B, Lee JM, Lee ES, Choi MH, Kim H. Multidetector CT of extrahepatic bile duct cancer: diagnostic performance of tumor resectability and interreader agreement. Radiology 2022;304:96-105 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.212132
  15. Ni Q, Wang H, Zhang Y, Qian L, Chi J, Liang X, et al. MDCT assessment of resectability in hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42:851-860 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0943-0
  16. Nagakawa Y, Kasuya K, Bunso K, Hosokawa Y, Kuwabara H, Nakagima T, et al. Usefulness of multi-3-dimensional computed tomograms fused with multiplanar reconstruction images and peroral cholangioscopy findings in hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2014;21:256-262 https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.85
  17. Ryoo I, Lee JM, Chung YE, Park HS, Kim SH, Han JK, et al. Gadobutrol-enhanced, three-dimensional, dynamic MR imaging with MR cholangiography for the preoperative evaluation of bile duct cancer. Invest Radiol 2010;45:217-224 https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181d2eeb1
  18. Kim JY, Kim MH, Lee TY, Hwang CY, Kim JS, Yun SC, et al. Clinical role of 18F-FDG PET-CT in suspected and potentially operable cholangiocarcinoma: a prospective study compared with conventional imaging. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1145-1151 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01710.x
  19. Sakamoto E, Nimura Y, Hayakawa N, Kamiya J, Kondo S, Nagino M, et al. The pattern of infiltration at the proximal border of hilar bile duct carcinoma: a histologic analysis of 62 resected cases. Ann Surg 1998;227:405-411 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199803000-00013
  20. Choi JY, Lee JM, Lee JY, Kim SH, Lee MW, Han JK, et al. Assessment of hilar and extrahepatic bile duct cancer using multidetector CT: value of adding multiplanar reformations to standard axial images. Eur Radiol 2007;17:3130-3138 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0658-2
  21. Lee HY, Kim SH, Lee JM, Kim SW, Jang JY, Han JK, et al. Preoperative assessment of resectability of hepatic hilar cholangiocarcinoma: combined CT and cholangiography with revised criteria. Radiology 2006;239:113-121 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2383050419
  22. Franken LC, Coelen RJS, Erdmann JI, Verheij J, Kop MP, van Gulik TM, et al. Multidetector computed tomography assessment of vascular involvement in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2021;11:4514-4521 https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-1303
  23. Rassam F, Roos E, van Lienden KP, van Hooft JE, Klumpen HJ, van Tienhoven G, et al. Modern work-up and extended resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: the AMC experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2018;403:289-307 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-018-1649-2