Magnetic Resonance of Rectal Cancer Response to Therapy: An Image Quality Comparison between 3.0 and 1.5 Tesla

الملخص EN

Purpose.

To evaluate signal intensity (SI) differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T on T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in rectal cancer pre-, during, and postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Materials and Methods.

22 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were prospectively enrolled.

All patients underwent T2w, DWI, and ADC pre-, during, and post-CRT on both 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI.

A radiologist drew regions of interest (ROIs) of the tumor and obturator internus muscle on the selected slice to evaluate SI and relative SI (rSI).

Additionally, a subanalysis evaluating the SI before and after-CRT (∆SI pre-post) in complete responder patients (CR) and nonresponder patients (NR) on T2w, DWI, and ADC was performed.

Results.

Significant differences were observed for T2w and DWI on 3.0 T MRI compared to 1.5 T MRI pre-, during, and post-CRT (all P<0.001), whereas no significant differences were reported for ADC among all controls (all P>0.05).

rSI showed no significant differences in all the examinations for all sequences (all P>0.05).

∆SI showed significant differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI for DWI-∆SI in CR and NR (188.39±166.90 vs.

30.45±21.73 and 169.70±121.87 vs.

22.00±31.29, respectively, all P 0.02) and ADC-∆SI for CR (−0.58±0.27 vs.

−0.21±0.24P value 0.02), while no significant differences were observed for ADC-∆SI in NR and both CR and NR for T2w-∆SI.

Conclusion.

T2w-SI and DWI-SI showed significant differences for 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T in all three controls, while ADCSI showed no significant differences in all three controls on both field strengths.

rSI was comparable for 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in rectal cancer patients; therefore, rectal cancer patients can be assessed both at 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI.

However, a significant DWI-∆SI and ADC-∆SI on 3.0 T in CR might be interpreted as a better visual assessment in discriminating response to therapy compared to 1.5 T.

Further investigations should be performed to confirm future possible clinical application.