Advertisement

Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 120–127 | Cite as

Diffusion-weighted imaging findings of mucinous carcinoma arising in the ano-rectal region: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient with that of tubular adenocarcinoma

  • Katsuhiro NasuEmail author
  • Yoshifumi Kuroki
  • Manabu Minami
Original article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) characteristics of ano-rectal mucinous carcinoma. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and DWI findings for mucinous and tubular adenocarcinomas were retrospectively compared.

Materials and methods

Eight-one consecutive surgically resected ano-rectal adenocarcinomas were evaluated. The patient group consisted of 15 mucinous and 66 tubular adenocarcinomas. The DWI signal intensity (SI) pattern of each tumor was visually classified into one of three groups. Differences in the proportions in each group were statistically compared for the two types of tumor. The ADCs of each tumor, calculated from two different b-factors (0 and 1500 s/mm2) were compared statistically.

Results

Visual evaluation revealed ten mucinous carcinomas as predominantly hypointense lesions, and the remaining five as mixed SI lesions. Sixty-one of 66 tubular adenocarcinomas had hyperintensities; the remaining five had mixed SI. The different proportions in each group were statistically significant. The mean ADC for mucinous carcinomas was 1.49 ± 0.34 × 10−3 mm2/s whereas that for tubular adenocarcinomas was 0.80 ± 0.15 × 10−3 mm2/s. The difference between those figures was statistically significant.

Conclusion

In DWI, mucinous carcinomas had higher ADCs and lower SI than tubular adenocarcinomas. DWI and ADC measurements were useful for differentiating these two tumors.

Keywords

DWI ADC Mucinous carcinoma Tubular adenocarcinoma Ano-rectal region 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was financially assisted by health and labor science research grants of the third term comprehensive research for cancer. The authors are grateful to our colleagues; Yoshito Kato, Narumi Akimoto, Tsunesato Akita, and Keiich Nomura for their contribution in image acquisition. We also appreciate Makoto Obara and Marc van Cauteren for their useful suggestion about our MR apparatus and software.

References

  1. 1.
    Du W, Mah JT, Lee J, Sankila R, Sankaranarayanan R, Chia KS. Incidence and survival of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum: a population-based study from an Asian country. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:78–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Consorti F, Lorenzotti A, Midiri G, Di Paola M. Prognostic significance of mucinous carcinoma of colon and rectum: a prospective case–control study. J Surg Oncol. 2000;73:70–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang BL, Shao WJ, Sun GD, Chen YQ, Huang JC. Perianal mucinous adenocarcinoma arising from chronic anorectal fistulae: a review from single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:1001–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Green JB, Timmcke AE, Mitchell WT, Hicks TC, Gathright JB, Ray JE. Mucinous carcinoma—just another colon cancer? Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:49–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamamoto S, Mochizuki H, Yamamoto Y, Ohsuka Y, Yokoyama S, Ushitani Y, et al. Assessment of clinicopathologic features of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg. 1993;166:257–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teixeira CR, Tanaka S, Haruma K, Yoshihara M, Sumii K, Kajiyama G, et al. The clinical significance of the histologic subclassification of colorectal carcinoma. Oncology. 1993;50:495–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parham D. Colloid carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1923;77:90–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Nawano S, Kuroki S, Tsukamoto T, Yamamoto S, et al. Hepatic metastases: diffusion-weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2006;239:122–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuroki Y, Nasu K, Kuroki S, Murakami K, Hayashi T, Sekiguchi R. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer with the sensitivity encoding technique: analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient value. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2004;3:79–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shimofusa R, Fujimoto H, Akamata H, Motoori K, Yamamoto S, Ueda T, Ito H. Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005;29:149–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Tsukamoto T, Nakajima H, Mori K, Minami M. Diffusion-weighted imaging of surgically resected hepatocellular carcinoma: imaging characteristics and relationship among signal intensity, apparent diffusion coefficient, and histopathologic grade. AJR. 2009;193:438–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Kuroki S, Murakami K, Nawano S, Moriyama N. Diffusion-weighted single shot echo planar imaging of colorectal cancer using a sensitivity-encoding technique. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2004;34:620–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim SH, Lee JM, Hong SH, Kim GH, Lee JY, Han JK, et al. Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy. Radiology. 2009;253:116–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ko EY, Ha HK, Kim AY, Yoon KH, Yoo CS, Kim HC, et al. CT differentiation of mucinous and nonmucinous colorectal carcinoma. AJR. 2007;188:785–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hussain SM, Outwater EK, Siegelman ES. Mucinous versus nonmucinous rectal carcinomas: differentiation with MR imaging. Radiology. 1999;213:79–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, Ikushima I, Shigematu Y, Hirai T, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. JMRI. 1999;9:53–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang H, O’Connell JB, Maggard MA, Sack J, Ko CY. A 10-year outcomes evaluation of mucinous and signet-ring cell carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1161–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF, et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:759–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takenaka D, Ohno Y, Matsumoto K, Aoyama N, Onishi Y, Koyama H, et al. Detection of bone metastases in non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), whole-body MR imaging without and with DWI, whole-body FDG-PET/CT, and bone scintigraphy. JMRI. 2009;30:298–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burdette JH, Elster AD, Ricci PE. Acute cerebral infarction: quantification of spin-density and T2 shine-through phenomena on diffusion-weighted MR images. Radiology. 1999;212:333–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katsuhiro Nasu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yoshifumi Kuroki
    • 2
  • Manabu Minami
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Institute of Clinical MedicineUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyTochigi Cancer CenterUtsunomiyaJapan

Personalised recommendations