Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CT Perfusion evaluation of gastric cancer: correlation with histologic type

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To prospectively evaluate if the perfusion parameters of gastric cancer can provide information on histologic subtypes of gastric cancer.

Methods

We performed preoperative perfusion CT (PCT) and curative gastrectomy in 46 patients. PCT data were analysed using a dedicated software program. Perfusion parameters were obtained by two independent radiologists and were compared according to histologic type using Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic analysis. To assess inter-reader agreement, we used intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Inter-reader agreement for perfusion parameters was moderate to substantial (ICC = 0.585–0.678). Permeability surface value of poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC) was significantly higher than other histologic types (47.3 ml/100 g/min in PCC vs 26.5 ml/100 g/min in non-PCC, P < 0.001). Mean transit time (MTT) of PCC was also significantly longer than non-PCC (13.0 s in PCC vs 10.3 s in non-PCC, P = 0.032). The area under the curve to predict PCC was 0.891 (P < 0.001) for permeability surface and 0.697 (P = 0.015) for MTT.

Conclusion

Obtaining perfusion parameters from PCT was feasible in gastric cancer patients and can aid in the preoperative imaging diagnosis of PCC-type gastric cancer as the permeability surface and MTT value of PCC type gastric cancer were significantly higher than those of non-PCC.

Key points

• Obtaining perfusion parameters from PCT was feasible in patients with gastric cancer.

• Permeability surface and MTT were significantly higher in poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC).

• Permeability surface, MTT can aid in the preoperative imaging diagnosis of PCC.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 55:74–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yao J, Yang ZG, Chen HJ, Chen TW, Huang J (2011) Gastric adenocarcinoma: can perfusion CT help to noninvasively evaluate tumor angiogenesis? Abdom Imaging 36:15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hu B, El Hajj N, Sittler S, Lammert N, Barnes R, Meloni-Ehrig A (2012) Gastric cancer: classification, histology and application of molecular pathology. J Gastrointest Oncol 3:251–261

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Li ZS, Li Q (2011) The latest 2010 WHO classification of tumors of digestive system. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 40:351–354

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ribeiro MM, Sarmento JA, Sobrinho Simoes MA, Bastos J (1981) Prognostic significance of Lauren and Ming classifications and other pathologic parameters in gastric carcinoma. Cancer 47:780–784

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hass HG, Smith U, Jager C et al (2011) Signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach is significantly associated with poor prognosis and diffuse gastric cancer (Lauren's): single-center experience of 160 cases. Onkologie 34:682–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Su JS, Chen YT, Wang RC, Wu CY, Lee SW, Lee TY (2013) Clinicopathological characteristics in the differential diagnosis of hepatoid adenocarcinoma: a literature review. World J Gastroenterol 19:321–327

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Berlth F, Bollschweiler E, Drebber U, Hoelscher AH, Moenig S (2014) Pathohistological classification systems in gastric cancer: diagnostic relevance and prognostic value. World J Gastroenterol 20:5679–5684

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kwon KJ, Shim KN, Song EM et al (2014) Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. Gastric Cancer 17:43–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim JP, Kim SC, Yang HK (1994) Prognostic significance of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. Surg Oncol 3:221–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Piessen G, Messager M, Leteurtre E, Jean-Pierre T, Mariette C (2009) Signet ring cell histology is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in gastric adenocarcinoma regardless of tumoral clinical presentation. Ann Surg 250:878–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Henson DE, Dittus C, Younes M, Nguyen H, Albores-Saavedra J (2004) Differential trends in the intestinal and diffuse types of gastric carcinoma in the United States, 1973-2000: increase in the signet ring cell type. Arch Pathol Lab Med 128:765–770

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cunningham SC, Kamangar F, Kim MP et al (2005) Survival after gastric adenocarcinoma resection: eighteen-year experience at a single institution. J Gastrointest Surg 9:718–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Novotny AR, Schuhmacher C, Busch R, Kattan MW, Brennan MF, Siewert JR (2006) Predicting individual survival after gastric cancer resection: validation of a U.S.-derived nomogram at a single high-volume center in Europe. Ann Surg 243:74–81

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Miles KA, Griffiths MR (2003) Perfusion CT: a worthwhile enhancement? Br J Radiol 76:220–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yi CA, Lee KS, Kim EA et al (2004) Solitary pulmonary nodules: dynamic enhanced multi-detector row CT study and comparison with vascular endothelial growth factor and microvessel density. Radiology 233:191–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Meijerink MR, van Waesberghe JH, van der Weide L, van den Tol P, Meijer S, van Kuijk C (2008) Total-liver-volume perfusion CT using 3-D image fusion to improve detection and characterization of liver metastases. Eur Radiol 18:2345–2354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen TW, Yang ZG, Li Y, Li ZL, Yao J, Sun JY (2009) Quantitative assessment of first-pass perfusion of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma using 64-section MDCT: initial observation. Clin Radiol 64:38–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang H, Pan Z, Du L et al (2008) Advanced gastric cancer and perfusion imaging using a multidetector row computed tomography: correlation with prognostic determinants. Korean J Radiol 9:119–127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Satoh A, Shuto K, Okazumi S et al (2010) Role of perfusion CT in assessing tumor blood flow and malignancy level of gastric cancer. Dig Surg 27:253–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yao J, Yang ZG, Chen TW, Li Y, Yang L (2010) Perfusion changes in gastric adenocarcinoma: evaluation with 64-section MDCT. Abdom Imaging 35:195–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee DH, Kim SH, Im SA, Oh DY, Kim TY, Han JK (2016) Multiparametric fully-integrated 18-FDG PET/MRI of advanced gastric cancer for prediction of chemotherapy response: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 26:2771–2778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A et al (2010) Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 376:687–697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brix G, Bahner ML, Hoffmann U, Horvath A, Schreiber W (1999) Regional blood flow, capillary permeability, and compartmental volumes: measurement with dynamic CT--initial experience. Radiology 210:269–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Raghunand N, Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ et al (2003) Microenvironmental and cellular consequences of altered blood flow in tumours. Br J Radiol 76(Spec No 1):S11–S22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fukui Y (2014) Mechanisms behind signet ring cell carcinoma formation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 450:1231–1233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim DY, Park YK, Joo JK et al (2004) Clinicopathological characteristics of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. ANZ J Surg 74:1060–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim SH, Kim MA, Shin CI, Han JK, Choi BI (2015) CT differentiation of poorly-differentiated gastric neuroendocrine tumours from well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours and gastric adenocarcinomas. Eur Radiol 25:1946–1957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goh V, Halligan S, Bartram CI (2007) Quantitative tumor perfusion assessment with multidetector CT: are measurements from two commercial software packages interchangeable? Radiology 242:777–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kudo K, Sasaki M, Yamada K et al (2010) Differences in CT perfusion maps generated by different commercial software: quantitative analysis by using identical source data of acute stroke patients. Radiology 254:200–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim SH, Kamaya A, Willmann JK (2014) CT perfusion of the liver: principles and applications in oncology. Radiology 272:322–344

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea

    Dong Ho Lee, Se Hyung Kim, Ijin Joo & Joon Koo Han

  2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Se Hyung Kim & Joon Koo Han

  3. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, South Korea

    Joon Koo Han

Authors
  1. Dong Ho Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Se Hyung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ijin Joo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joon Koo Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Se Hyung Kim.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Se Hyung Kim.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Funding

The authors state that this study was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT& Future Planning (NRF-2016R1A2B4007762) and by Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund No. 04-2015-620.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study.

Methodology

• prospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, D.H., Kim, S.H., Joo, I. et al. CT Perfusion evaluation of gastric cancer: correlation with histologic type. Eur Radiol 28, 487–495 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4979-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4979-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation