Keywords:
Experimental, MR-Diffusion/Perfusion, Colon, Gastrointestinal tract, Contrast agents, Contrast agent-intravenous, Cancer
Authors:
R. A. P. Dijkhoff1, S. drago2, J. Santinha3, D. M. J. Lambregts4, J. J. M. van Griethuysen4, F. C. Bakers1, N. Papanikolaou3, R. G. H. Beets-Tan4, M. Maas4; 1Maastricht/NL, 2MONZA/IT, 3Lisbon/PT, 4Amsterdam/NL
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2018/C-1612
Results
Normal 0 21 false false false NL X-NONE X-NONE
12 patients were included,
6 were scanned with GDB and 6 with GDF.
The GDB group had a mean age of 73 years (SD 11 years) and 66.7% were male patients.
The GDF group had a mean age of 65 years (SD 16 years) of which 66.7% were male patients.
The clinical tumour and nodal staging was identical in both groups,
respectively cT1-2 50.0%,
cT3 33.3% and cT4 16.7%,
and cN0 33.3%,
cN1 33.3% and cN2 33.3%.
Most patients had cM0 status in both groups (83.3%).
GDF vs.
GDB
All semiquantitative parameters analysed in the two groups are summarized in table 1.
No statistically significant differences were found between the GDB and GDF groups.
Especially wash-in parameters such as mean wash-in slope,
mean TTP,
and mean MaxEnh were very similar.
As depicted in figure 1 and 2,
the wash-in phase is similar for both groups.
Conversely,
wash-out shows a different pattern for the two contrast agents.
GDF tends to lead to prolonged enhancement and formation of a plateau.
This wash-out phase is similar for all patients who had GDF.
GDB leads to rapid signal decrease and a visible wash-out.
The mean wash-out slope differed substantially between groups (GDB -0.4093 vs.
GDF 0.038),
albeit not statistically significant (p=0.104).