Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 473–481 | Cite as

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) in differentiating between benign and metastatic lymph nodes in cases of cholangiocarcinoma

  • Julaluck PromsornEmail author
  • Wannaporn Soontrapa
  • Kulyada Somsap
  • Nittaya Chamadol
  • Panita Limpawattana
  • Mukesh Harisinghani
Article

Abstract

Introduction

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is the primary tumor found in the bile duct and is associated with a high incidence of lymph node (LN) metastases and poor outcomes. The presence of metastatic lymph nodes, when shown by imaging, can influence patient treatment and prognosis. DWI is a promising, non-invasive imaging technique for differentiating between benign and malignant LNs. Many studies have shown that LN metastases have a lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value when compared to benign nodes.

Objective

To evaluate the performance of ADC values as a basis for diagnosis of LN metastasis in cholangiocarcinoma patients.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective imaging study that evaluated histopathologically proven intraabdominal LNs in cholangiocarcinoma patients who underwent a 1.5T abdomen MRI with DWI between January 2012 and July 2016. The ADC values and short-axis diameters of the LNs were measured and compared using student’s t test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the threshold.

Results

A total of 120 lymph nodes—85 benign and 35 metastatic—were included. The mean short-axis diameter of the benign LNs (8.34 mm) was significantly lesser than that of the malignant LNs (9.56 mm). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis using a size criterion of 1 cm yielded a value of 0.63. A diagnostic size criterion of 1 cm for the short axis was applied and yielded an accuracy of 66%, sensitivity/specificity of 41%/75%, and positive/negative predictive value of 34%/80%. The mean ADC values of metastatic (1.31 × 10−3 mm2/s) LNs were not significantly different from those of non-metastatic LNs (1.29 × 10−3 mm2/s).

Conclusion

There was no difference in terms of ADC value between benign lymph nodes and those with metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Isolated measurement of the ADC value does not contribute to a diagnosis of lymph node metastasis.

Keywords

DWI ADC measurement Cholangiocarcinoma lymph node metastasis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Dylan Southard (Research Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand) for editing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was funded by Faculty of Medicine Khon Kaen University, Thailand (Grant Number IN60110).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of retrospective study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Chamadol N, Pairojkul C, Khuntikeo N, et al. (2014) Histological confirmation of periductal fibrosis from ultrasound diagnosis in cholangiocarcinoma patients. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 21(5):316–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chamadol N (2014) Imaging of Cholangiocarcinoma Khon Kaen, 1st edn. Khon Kaen: Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, KKUGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaewpitoon N, Kaewpitoon SJ, Pengsaa P, Sripa B (2008) Orpisthorchis viverrini: the carcinogenic human liver fluke. World J Gastroenterol 14(5):666–674PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murakami Y, Uemura K, Hayashidani Y, et al. (2007) Pancreatoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic impact of lymph node metastasis. World J Surg 31(2):337–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Unno M, Katayose Y, Rikiyama T, et al. (2010) Major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(4):463–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Young AL, Prasad KR, Toogood GJ, Lodge JP (2010) Surgical treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma in a new era: comparison among leading Eastern and Western centers. Leeds J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(4):497–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lau SH, Lau WY (2012) Current therapy of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 11(1):12–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. (2010) Perihilar bile ducts. In: Amin MB, et al. (eds) AJCC cancer staging handbook, 7th edn. Chicago, IL: Springer, p 718Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee HY, Kim SH, Lee JM, et al. (2006) Preoperative assessment of resectability of hepatic hilar cholangiocarcinoma: combined CT and cholangiography with revised criteria. Radiology 239(1):113–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roche CJ, Hughes ML, Garvey CJ, et al. (2003) CT and pathologic assessment of prospective nodal staging in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(2):475–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kluge R, Schmidt F, Caca K, et al. (2001) Positron emission tomography with [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose for diagnosis and staging of bile duct cancer. Hepatology 33(5):1029–1035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hänninen EL, Pech M, Jonas S, et al. (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging including magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for tumor localization and therapy planning in malignant hilar obstructions. Acta Radiol 46(5):462–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang J, Liao Q, Zhang Y, et al. (2012) Differential diagnosis of axillary inflammatory and metastatic lymph nodes in rabbit models by using diffusion-weighted imaging: compared with conventional magnetic resonance imaging. Korean J Radiol 13(4):458–466PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qayyum A (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: concepts and applications. Radiographics 29(6):1797–1810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shinya S, Sasaki T, Nakagawa Y, et al. (2007) The usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for the detection of gastric cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 54(77):1378–1381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xue HD, Li S, Sun HY, Jin ZY, Sun F (2008) Experimental study of inflammatory and metastatic lymph nodes with diffusion weighted imaging on animal model: comparison with conventional methods. Chin Med Sci J 23(3):166–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mir N, Sohaib SA, Collins D, Koh DM (2010) Fusion of high b-value diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted MR images improves identification of lymph nodes in the pelvis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 54(4):358–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin C, Luciani A, Itti E, et al. (2010) Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for staging patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Eur Radiol 20(8):2027–2038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eiber M, Beer AJ, Holzapfel K, et al. (2010) Preliminary results for characterization of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted MR-imaging. Invest Radiol 45(1):15–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen YB, Liao J, Xie R, Chen GL, Chen G (2011) Discrimination of metastatic from hyperplastic pelvic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 36(1):102–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klerkx WM, Mali WM, Peter Heintz A, et al. (2011) Observer variation of magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion weighted imaging in pelvic lymph node detection. Eur J Radiol 78(1):71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vallini V, Ortori S, Boraschi P, et al. (2015) Staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: usefulness of multiple b value SE-EPI diffusion-weighted imaging on a 3.0T MR system. Eur J Radiol Open 3:16–21PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang J, Takashima S, Takayama F, et al. (2001) Head and neck lesions: characterization with diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 220(3):621–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, et al. (1986) MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 161(2):401–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holzapfel K, Gaa J, Schubert EC, et al. (2016) Value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41(10):1937–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim HJ, Karpeh MS, Brennan MF (2001) Standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: impact on survival. Adv Surg 35:203–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roy C, Bierry G, Matau A, Bazille G, Pasquali R (2010) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging to detect small malignant pelvic lymph nodes at 3 T. Eur Radiol 20(8):1803–1811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li H, Liu X-W, Geng Z-J, Wang D-L, Xie C-M (2015) Diffusion-weighted imaging to differentiate metastatic from non-metastatic retropharyngeal lymph nodes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 44(3):20140126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruys AT, Ten Kate FJ, Busch OR, et al. (2011) Metastatic lymph nodes in hilar cholangiocarcinoma: does size matter? HPB (Oxford) 13(12):881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, et al. (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11(2):102–125PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nakai G, Matsuki M, Inada Y, et al. (2008) Detection and evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with gynecologic malignancies using body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32(5):764–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yasui O, Sato M, Kamada A (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. Tohoku J Exp Med 218(3):177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anzai Y, Piccoli CW, Outwater EK, et al. (2003) Evaluation of neck and body metastases to nodes with ferumoxtran 10-enhanced MR imaging: phase III safety and efficacy study. Radiology 228(3):777–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anzai Y, Blackwell KE, Hirschowitz SL, et al. (1994) Initial clinical experience with dextran-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide for detection of lymph node metastases in patients with head and neck cancer. Radiology 192(3):709–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hoffman HT, Quets J, Toshiaki T, et al. (2000) Functional magnetic resonance imaging using iron oxide particles in characterizing head and neck adenopathy. Laryngoscope 110(9):1425–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sigal R, Vogl T, Casselman J, et al. (2001) Lymph node metastases from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: MR imaging with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles (Sinerem MR)—results of a phase-III multicenter clinical trial. Eur Radiol 12(5):1104–1113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mack MG, Balzer JO, Straub R, Eichler K, Vogl TJ (2002) Superparamagnetic iron oxide—enhanced MR imaging of head and neck lymph nodes. Radiology 222(1):239–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. (2003) Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph–node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 348:2491–2499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Deserno WM, Harisinghani MG, Taupitz M (2004) Urinary bladder cancer: preoperative nodal staging with ferumoxtran-10—enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 233(2):449–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stets C, Brandt S, Wallis F, et al. (2002) Axillary lymph node metastases: a statistical analysis of various parameters in MRI with USPIO. J Magn Reson Imaging 16(1):60–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Michel SC, Keller TM, Frohlich JM, et al. (2002) Preoperative breast cancer staging: MR imaging of the axilla with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide enhancement. Radiology 225(2):527–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pannu HK, Wang KP, Borman TL, Bluemke DA (2000) MR imaging of mediastinal lymph nodes: evaluation using a superparamagnetic contrast agent. J Magn Reson Imaging 12(6):899–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nguyen BC, Stanford W, Thompson BH, et al. (1999) Multicenter clinical trial of ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide in the evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with primary lung carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 10(3):468–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Keller TM, Michel SC, Frohlich J, et al. (2004) USPIO-enhanced MRI for preoperative staging of gynecological pelvic tumors: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 14(6):937–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Harisinghani MG, Ross RW, Guimaraes AR, Weissleder R (2007) Utility of a new bolus-injectable nanoparticle for clinical cancer staging. Neoplasia 9(12):1160–1165PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McDermott S, Thayer SP, Castillo CF, et al. (2013) Accurate prediction of nodal status in preoperative patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using next-gen nanoparticle. Transl Oncol 6(6):670–675PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julaluck Promsorn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wannaporn Soontrapa
    • 1
  • Kulyada Somsap
    • 1
  • Nittaya Chamadol
    • 1
  • Panita Limpawattana
    • 2
  • Mukesh Harisinghani
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of MedicineKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations