Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 487–495 | Cite as

CT Perfusion evaluation of gastric cancer: correlation with histologic type

  • Dong Ho Lee
  • Se Hyung KimEmail author
  • Ijin Joo
  • Joon Koo Han
Gastrointestinal

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.

Keywords

Histologic type of gastric cancer Perfusion CT Poorly cohesive carcinoma Permeability surface Mean transit time 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

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

Supplementary material

330_2017_4979_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 55:74–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 36:15–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 3:251–261PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li ZS, Li Q (2011) The latest 2010 WHO classification of tumors of digestive system. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 40:351–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 47:780–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 34:682–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 19:321–327CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 20:5679–5684CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwon KJ, Shim KN, Song EM et al (2014) Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. Gastric Cancer 17:43–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim JP, Kim SC, Yang HK (1994) Prognostic significance of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. Surg Oncol 3:221–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 250:878–887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 128:765–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 9:718–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 243:74–81CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miles KA, Griffiths MR (2003) Perfusion CT: a worthwhile enhancement? Br J Radiol 76:220–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 233:191–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 18:2345–2354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 64:38–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 9:119–127CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 27:253–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yao J, Yang ZG, Chen TW, Li Y, Yang L (2010) Perfusion changes in gastric adenocarcinoma: evaluation with 64-section MDCT. Abdom Imaging 35:195–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 26:2771–2778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 376:687–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 210:269–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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–S22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fukui Y (2014) Mechanisms behind signet ring cell carcinoma formation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 450:1231–1233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim DY, Park YK, Joo JK et al (2004) Clinicopathological characteristics of signet ring cell carcinoma of the stomach. ANZ J Surg 74:1060–1064CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 25:1946–1957CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goh V, Halligan S, Bartram CI (2007) Quantitative tumor perfusion assessment with multidetector CT: are measurements from two commercial software packages interchangeable? Radiology 242:777–782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 254:200–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim SH, Kamaya A, Willmann JK (2014) CT perfusion of the liver: principles and applications in oncology. Radiology 272:322–344CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong Ho Lee
    • 1
  • Se Hyung Kim
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ijin Joo
    • 1
  • Joon Koo Han
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Institute of Radiation MedicineSeoul National University Medical Research CenterSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations