Skip to main content
Download PDF

The value of diffusion kurtosis imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion quantitative parameters in predicting synchronous distant metastasis of rectal cancer

BMC Cancer volume 22, Article number: 920 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The incidence and mortality rate of rectal cancer are still high, the metastasis of rectal cancer are main causes of death. The control of the distant metastasis is one of the main concerns in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, but there are few studies on predicting synchronous distant metastasis (SDM) of rectal cancer.

Method

The data of patients with rectal adenocarcinoma confirmed by endoscopic biopsy or postoperative pathology from September 2015 to May 2020 in hospital A (center 1) and hospital B (center 2) were analyzed retrospectively, including age, sex, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19–9, tumor location, tumor length, image staging and characteristics. The average age of the 169 patients consisting of 105 males and 64 females in study is 61.2 years. All patients underwent rectal routine rectal MRI, DKI and IVIM examinations on a 3.0-T scanner. Two radiologists sketched regions of interest (ROIs) on b = 1000 s/mm2 DKI and IVIM images to obtain quantitative parameters with FireVoxel manually. We evaluated the difference of histogram analysis, clinical and image data between SDM group and non-SDM group, and evaluated the efficacy of each index in predicting SDM of rectal cancer.

Results

The 90th percentile of f values in the SDM group is lower than that in the non-SDM group (29.4 ± 8.4% vs. 35 ± 17.8%, P = 0.005). CA19-9 in the SDM group is higher than that in the non-SDM group (P = 0.003). Low and high rectal cancer are more likely to develop SDM than middle rectal cancer (P = 0.05 and P = 0.047). The combination of these three indexes has a greater area under the curve (AUC) than any one index (0.801 vs. 0.685 (f (90th percentile)) and 0.627 (CA19-9), P = 0.0075 and 0.0058, respectively), and its specificity and sensitivity are 80.0% and 71.6%, respectively. When this combination is incorporated into the predictive nomogram model, the c-index is 0.801 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.730–0.871).

Conclusions

IVIM quantitative parameters combine with CA19-9 and tumor location can better predict the risk of SDM of rectal cancer.

Peer Review reports

Background

The incidence of colorectal cancer ranks third among all cancers across the world, and the mortality rate ranks second, of which rectal cancer accounts for about 1/3 [1]. In China, the incidence of colorectal cancer is lower than that in the United States and Britain, but its mortality rate is higher [2]. Metastasis and recurrence of rectal cancer are main causes of death [1, 2]. After the introduction of total mesorectal excision and neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the success rate of rectal cancer resection has been higher, and the local recurrence rate has been significantly reduced [3,4,5,6]. Distant metastasis of rectal cancer is still one of the difficulties in its treatment [7, 8], according to the different time of occurrence and different location of metastasis, distant metastasis of rectal cancer can be divided into synchronous and metachronous distant metastasis. Synchronous distant metastasis(SDM) refers to the distant metastasis which found during baseline examination, metachronous distant metastasis refers to metastasis which found after baseline examination or after total mesorectal excision [9]. And the most common metastatic sites are the liver and lungs [10,11,12]. There are different treatment principles and methods in synchronous or metachronous metastases. The treatment of SDM of rectal cancer should consider the situation of the primary cancer to choose the treatment sequence and systemic treatment strategy [13]. Surgical resection is the first choice of treatment, as it can significantly improve the survival rate [14,15,16]. The research results of the latest treatment model for rectal cancer: total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), found that this treatment model has greater benefits in patients with high-risk and organ-preserving rectal cancer, but its application in patients with distant metastasis of rectal cancer remains to be studied.

The diagnosis of distant metastasis of rectal cancer mainly depends on laboratory and imaging examination. Some studies have found that laboratory values such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA19-9) can diagnose SDM of rectal cancer [17,18,19], but their positive predictive value is not high, and their significance is limited. Rectal MRI examination is already a routine examination for patients with rectal cancer, while routine screening for distant metastasis of rectal cancer has consisted mainly of chest and abdominal CT examination, abdominal MRI examination and systemic PET-CT examination, but these have some limitations: owing to the subjective factors of the radiologist, there are some misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses [20, 21]; CT examination has radiation damage to human body; MRI and PET-CT examinations are more expensive; and the specificity of PET-CT examination is low. Other studies about rectal MRI examinations have found that T stage [22], lymph node metastasis [23], circumferential resection margin (CRM) [24] and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) [25] can also predict SDM, but these results can only be exactly known after operation, and it is impossible to accurately judge whether the patient has distant metastasis before treatment, so its presence or absence can not be used to guide the strategy of preoperative treatment.

MRI functional imaging diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) have been rarely used in rectal cancer distant metastasis. Yu's study [26] found that the histogram metrics 10th percentile of Dapp (Dapp-10th) can predict the existence of SDM of rectal cancer, area under the curve (AUC) is 0.856, but the sample size of this study was small, clinical and imaging features were not included in the study. The purpose of our study is to explore whether the quantitative parameters of DKI and IVIM combined with clinical-imaging features can predict the risk of SDM in patients with rectal cancer.

Materials and methods

Patients

The data of 169 patients with rectal cancer confirmed by endoscopic biopsy or postoperative pathology from September 2015 to May 2020 in hospital A (center 1) and hospital B (center 2) were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical and imaging data were collected, including age, sex, CEA, CA19-9 and routine MRI, DKI, IVIM images. Inclusion criteria: routine rectal MRI, DKI and IVIM examinations were performed at baseline; neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy were not received before baseline examination, exclusion criteria: the image quality of the patient was poor or the tumor was too small to outline the regions of interest (ROIs); the patient had other cancer or the pathological result was not rectal adenocarcinoma; the clinical data were incomplete, the flow chart is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of inclusion and exclusion

Full size image

Imaging acquisition

All patients underwent rectal MRI with a 3.0-T scanner (Ingenia of Philips Medical Systems, machine 1 and Prisma of Siemens Medical Systems, machine 2) using a 32-channel phased-array body coil in the supine position. Routine rectal MRI, DKI and IVIM examinations were performed in all patients. Scan sequences included sagittal T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), oblique axial high-resolution T2WI (HR-T2WI; the location line was perpendicular to the long axis of the intestinal canal in which the tumor resided), and oblique axial isotropic DKI and IVIM sequences (positioning was the same as for high-resolution T2WI) with respective b values were 0, 1000, 2000s/mm2 and 0, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 s/mm2. The scan parameters are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 MRI acquisition parameters
Full size table

Qualitative image evaluation

Two radiologists (with 7 and 5 years of experience in gastrointestinal imaging, respectively) reviewed the first pelvic MR images of all patients together and evaluated the tumor length, tumor location(high = 1, middle = 2, low = 3), T stage in MRI (mrT), N stage in MRI (mrN), CRM in MRI(mrCRM) and EMVI in MRI(mrEMVI). Two other radiologists (with 5 and 4 years of experience, respectively, in chest and abdominal diagnosis) analyzed all the images of each patient to assess the presence of distant metastasis together, and eventually diagnosed by clinical follow-up or pathological results. When the observer could not reach a consensus, another experienced radiologist (with 20 years of experience in thoracoabdominal diagnosis) was consulted for final advice. The evaluation of rectal cancer was based on the 8th edition of AJCC colorectal cancer staging system [27].

Quantitative image evaluation

Two radiologists with 2 and 5 years of experience in imaging diagnosis of intestinal tumors used FireVoxel software, combined with HR-T2WI images (Fig. 2a, 3a), to eliminate gas, intestinal contents, cystic areas, etc. [28]. They manually sketched regions of interest (ROIs) with multi layer fusion along the tumor edge on b = 1000 s/mm 2 DKI and IVIM images (Fig. 2b, 3b) to obtain a three-dimensional ROI of the tumor. Based on the tumor 3D ROI measurements, we calculated corresponding quantitative parameters according to the diffusion kurtosis model [29] Sb/S0 = exp(-b·D + b2·D2·K/6) and the intravoxel incoherent motion model [30] S0*(f*exp(-b*Dfast) + (1-f)*(exp(-b*Dslow)), where S0 represents the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) signal intensity of a pixel on the MR image when b = 0; Sb represents the DWI signal intensity value of a pixel on the MR image when b = b. D is the non-Gaussian diffusion coefficient, K is the kurtosis coefficient, Dfast is the fast diffusion coefficient, Dslow is the slow diffusion coefficient and f is the perfusion fraction. The corresponding pseudo color map was generated (Fig. 2c, 3c). We evaluated the consistency of the parameters measured by the two physicians. If the consistency was good, then we took the average of the measured values in the ROI outlined by the two as the final data for statistical analysis. MATLAB 2018b and SPSS 23.0 were used for histogram analysis, and we could get average, median, 10th percentile, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, 90th percentile, skewness and kurtosis of the quantitative parameters.

Statistical analysis

SPSS 23.0, MedCalc 12.1 and R software were used for statistical analysis and graphing. All data are standardized and preprocessed. The normality test and variance homogeneity test were carried out on the measurement data. The data with a normal distribution are represented by x ± s, and the nonnormal distributed data are represented by the median ± quartile. The two-sample t-test was used to compare the count data between groups. After comparing the differences in clinical data and quantitative histogram parameters between the SDM group and the non-SDM group by the Mann Whitney test, we found out main indexes and multivariable comprehensive analysis indexes with bivariate logistic regression analysis. In MedCalc 12.1, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the efficacy of SDM-related quantitative histogram parameters in identifying SDM of rectal cancer, and the best cutoff value for each parameter was determined based on the ROC curves to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the value for differential diagnosis. The DeLong method was used to compare the area under the curve (AUC) of different parameters to determine their significance. All the significant variables from binary logistic regression analysis were included in multivariable models and developed predictive nomograms. Harrell's c-index was used to evaluate the discriminant ability of the model. According to the consistency test of quantitative histogram parameters measured by ROI, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated (0.00–0.20, poor correlation; 0.21–0.40, fair correlation; 0.41–0.60, moderate correlation; 0.61–0.80, good correlation; and 0.81–1.00, excellent correlation). Statistical tests were two sided, and the test level was α = 0.05.

Results

Patient characteristics

Of the 169 patients, 33 patients received TME after chemotherapy or radiotherapy and chemotherapy, 132 patients did not receive preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, and the other 4 patients only received chemotherapy or radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Thirty-five patients had SDM, including 20 cases of liver metastasis, 10 cases of lung metastasis, 1 case of bone metastasis, 1 case of synchronous liver and lung metastasis, 1 case of distant lymph node metastasis and 2 cases of multiple distant metastasis. Six cases were confirmed by postoperative pathology, and the rest were diagnosed by imaging examination. The detailed features of the patients are listed in Table 2. There is no significant difference in sex, age, mrT, mrN stage or tumor length between the two groups. The levels of CEA and CA19-9 in the SDM group are significantly higher than those in the non-SDM group (P = 0.005 and P = 0.02). Patients with positive mrCRM or mrEMVI are more likely to have SDM (P = 0.006 and P = 0.011). High rectal cancer is more likely to have SDM than low rectal cancer (P = 0.004).

Table 2 Demographic and clinical characteristics of the 167 patients with rectal cancer
Full size table

Histogram index analysis of quantitative parameters of DKI and IVIM

The ICCs of D (kurtosis, 25th percentile), K (skewness, kurtosis) and Dslow (average, kurtosis, 25th percentile, 50th percentile) in the histogram indexes of the DKI and IVIM quantitative parameters between the two observers are good correlation, and the ICCs of other indicators are excellent correlation, as shown in Table 3. Although the ICCs of some histogram parameters is not excellent correlation, generally speaking, the consistency between the two observers is good, and the repeatability of this method is good.

Table 3 DKI and IVIM quantitative parameter histogram analysis results
Full size table

In the histogram index of quantitative parameters of DKI and IVIM, f (kurtosis) in the SDM group is higher than in that the non-SDM group, and the difference is statistically significant (P = 0.013). The SDM group have average, 75th percentile, and 90th percentile of f value that are significantly lower than those in the non-SDM group (P = 0.012, P = 0.004 and P = 0.001), as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Comparison of DKI and IVIM quantitative parameter histogram analysis between the synchronous distant metastasis group and the nonsynchronous distant metastasis group
Full size table

The variables with statistically significant differences in Tables 2 and 4 are further screened by multivariable binary logistic stepwise regression, CA19-9, tumor location and f (90th percentile) are significant variables, as shown in Table 5. After calculating the combination of the three variables, the AUC of the multivariable joint analysis index PRE_1 is 0.801, and the sensitivity and specificity are 80.0% and 71.6%, respectively. The pairwise comparison by the Delong method show that the diagnostic efficiency of PRE_1 is higher than that of f (90th percentile) and CA19-9 (P = 0.0058 and P = 0.0075, Z = 2.757 and Z = 2.675), as shown in Table 6 and Fig. 4. CA19-9, tumor location and f (90th percentile) are included in the nomogram prediction model, and the C index is 0.801 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.730–0.871), as shown in Fig. 5.

Table 5 Multivariate binary logistic stepwise regression screening results
Full size table
Table 6 Efficacy of the histogram analysis of DKI and IVIM quantitative parameters in the differential diagnosis of SDM of rectal cancer
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

a-c Manual segmentation of rectal cancer in diffusion kurtosis imaging

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

a-c Manual segmentation of rectal cancer in intravoxel incoherent motion

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Receiver operating characteristic curves of f (90th percentile), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) and PRE_1 in the differential diagnosis of synchronous distant metastasis of rectal cancer

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Predictive nomogram for the risk of synchronous distant metastasis (SDM)

Full size image

Discussion

Identifying rectal cancer patients with a high risk of SDM before surgery is the key to obtaining an individualized treatment strategy, improving the diagnostic accuracy for patients with suspected metastases and surgically removing the lesions early. In addition, for patients with a high risk of SDM that cannot be detected by imaging, earlier identification would let us take more active treatment measures and give the patient a shorter follow-up period. Gaitanidis [31] developed a nomogram to predict the presence of liver, lung and bone metastases in rectal cancer patients at the same time, he found that rectal cancer patients with synchronous liver metastasis are more likely to have synchronous lung and bone metastasis. It also means the importance of improving the diagnostic accuracy of synchronous distant metastasis of rectal cancer.

We find that there are significant differences in CEA, CA19-9, tumor location, mrCRM and mrEMVI between the SDM group and the non-SDM group. In the IVIM quantitative parameters,there are also difference in f (average, kurtosis, 75th percentile, 90th percentile) between the two groups. Further multivariable binary logistic stepwise regression screening show that only CA19-9, tumor location and f (90th percentile) are significant. The identification efficiency of the three combined indexes PRE_1 (AUC = 0.801) is significantly better than that of f (90th percentile) and CA19-9. PRE_1 model improves the positive predictive value on the premise of ensuring a high negative predictive value. The C index of the nomogram prediction model is 0.801, so its predictive value is good.

Some scholars found that serological indexes such as CEA and CA19-9 can predict SDM in patients with rectal cancer [17,18,19], this conclusion is also reached in our single factor analysis. However, after binary logistic stepwise regression screening, only CA19-9 has statistical significance in our study, which may have been due to the low positive predictive value of CEA and CA19-9. We find that patients with low and high rectal cancer are more likely to develop SDM. Some scholars found that tumors at the rectosigmoid are more likely to have SDM [31], and other scholars found that low rectal cancer was more likely to recur [32], which may be due to the abundance of blood and lymphatic reflux in high and low rectal cancer. Many scholars found that pathology TN stage, EMVI and CRF status of rectal cancer are also independent predictors of the metastasis and the prognosis of rectal cancer [23,24,25, 33]. However, we did not include these factors in this study. One reason is that these factors can be diagnosed more accurately in postoperative pathology, and the other is that some patients had received preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, so their results could not be compared with the results of postoperative pathology. There are no significant difference in mrT and mrN stage between the two groups. In single factor analysis, mrCRM and mrEMVI are of great significance in the diagnosis of SDM of rectal cancer, but after further screened by multivariable binary logistic stepwise regression, there are no significant difference. This result is different from some research [22,23,24,25]. The reason may be that the diagnostic efficiency of MRI is lower than the pathological gold standard [34].

We find that among the IVIM quantitative parameters, f (90th percentile) has the best diagnostic efficacy. The lower the f values, the lower the perfusion effect. The average and percentile of f value of SDM are mostly lower than that of non-SDM group. We analyze the internal data of the tumor and find that blood supply shortage, which may means that the tumor has external blood supply, such as the blood supply outside the intestinal wall. The tumor with external blood supply maybe have higher possibility to transfer to distant organs. The difference of f (90th percentile) is the largest, possible causes may be that the highest proportion of blood supply still can not reach a critical value, which means that the tumor is more likely to receive blood supply from extra-tumoral vessels. At the same time, the values of Dfast and Dslow in the SDM group are lower than those in the non-SDM group, indicating that the perfusion effect and water molecular diffusion effect are both decreased in the SDM group, but the degree of decrease in perfusion effect is more obvious, the possible reason is that some tumor cells have already spread to distant organs. Some studies also found that the f value is highly useful in differentiating liver metastases of rectal cancer from normal liver tissue [35], pancreatic cancer and normal pancreatic tissue [36]. Some scholars found that D (10th percentile), a quantitative parameter of DKI, can predict distant metastasis, but our study don’t find this. This may be due to the different b values we selected. In clinical work, to reduce the examination time of patients, we set less b values of DKI and IVIM. The combination of f (90th percentile), CA19-9 and tumor location further improved the identification efficiency. The AUC increase from 0.685 (for f (90th percentile)) to 0.801, a statistically significant improvement. Other scholars established a clinical-radiomics combined model based on T2WI images, which could effectively predict the risk of SDM [37], but only histological images were studied and without functional imaging. Hu [38] also found that radiomics models based on T2WI and DWI could be effectively used in assessing liver metastasis in rectal cancer, but the performance of DWI alone models was poor in other models. The possible reason is that DWI has low tissue resolution, which means that it doesn’t have enough features to be extracted. Zhao [39] established a model based on histogram parameters derived from intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging for predicting the nodal staging of rectal cancer. However,we don’t bring some histogram parameters of Dfast, Dslow, and f value, such as range, energy, total energy, into our research. In the next step, we can incorporate these indicators into research, and perhaps get a better model.

There are also some limitations to our study. One is that only some patients with SDM had a pathological basis for diagnosis, so there may have been missed diagnoses. The other is that there was a certain bias in the included patients, and some patients with incomplete data were excluded.

Conclusion

In summary, we found that the f value among IVIM quantitative parameters can well predict the risk of SDM of rectal cancer, in addition the diagnostic efficiency is even better when it is combined with CA19-9 and tumor location.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AUC:

Area under curve

CEA:

Carcinoembryonic antigen

CA19-9:

Carbohydrate antigen 19–9

CRM:

Circumferential resection margin

CI:

Confidence interval

CT:

Computed tomography

D:

Diffusion constant

DWI:

Diffusion weighted imaging

DKI:

Diffusion kurtosis imaging

Dfast:

Pseudo-diffusion

Dslow:

Tissue diffusion

EMVI:

Extramural vascular invasion

F:

Perfusion fraction

IVIM:

Intravoxel incoherent motion

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

K:

Kurtosis constant

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

MDT:

Multidisciplinary team

NSDM:

No-synchronous distant metastasis

PET-CT:

Positron emission tomography

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

ROI:

Region of interest

SDM:

Synchronous distant metastasis

TNT:

Total neoadjuvant therapy

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Feng RM, Zong YN, Cao SM, Xu RH. Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 Global cancer statistics. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2019;39(1):22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Engelen SM, Maas M, Lahaye MJ, et al. Modern multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer based on staging with magnetic resonance imaging leads to excellent local control, but distant control remains a challenge. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(10):2311–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. van Gijn W, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer: 12-year follow-up of the multicentre, randomised controlled TME trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(6):575–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sargent D, Sobrero A, Grothey A, et al. Evidence for cure by adjuvant therapy in colon cancer: observations based on individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(6):872–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Piso P, Dahlke MH, Mirena P, et al. Total mesorectal excision for middle and lower rectal cancer: a single institution experience with 337 consecutive patients. J Surg Oncol. 2004;86(3):115–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(17):1731–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodwin RA, Asmis TR. Overview of systemic therapy for colorectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2009;22(4):251–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Adam R, de Gramont A, Figueras J, et al. Managing synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a multidisciplinary international consensus. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41(9):729–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fossum CC, Alabbad JY, Romak LB, et al. The role of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for locally-advanced rectal cancer with resectable synchronous metastasis. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8(4):650–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Holch JW, Demmer M, Lamersdorf C, et al. Pattern and dynamics of distant metastases in metastatic colorectal cancer. Visc Med. 2017;33(1):70–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Butte JM, Gonen M, Ding P, et al. Patterns of failure in patients with early onset (synchronous) resectable liver metastases from rectal cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(21):5414–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(8):1386–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanas GP, Taylor A, Primrose JN, et al. Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin Epidemiol. 2012;4:283–301.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Hur H, Ko YT, Min BS, et al. Comparative study of resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases. Am J Surg. 2009;197(6):728–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kato T, Yasui K, Hirai T, et al. Therapeutic results for hepatic metastasis of colorectal cancer with special reference to effectiveness of hepatectomy: analysis of prognostic factors for 763 cases recorded at 18 institutions. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(10 Suppl):S22-31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhenghong, Zhu Z, Guoweijian, et al. Retrospective study of predictors of bone metastasis in colorectal cancer patients. J Bone Oncol. 2017;9:25–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dong H, Tang J, Li LH, et al. Serum carbohydrate antigen 19–9 as an indicator of liver metastasis in colorectal carcinoma cases. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(2):909–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin PC, Lin JK, Lin CC, et al. Carbohydrate antigen 19–9 is a valuable prognostic factor in colorectal cancer patients with normal levels of carcinoembryonic antigen and may help predict lung metastasis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(10):1333–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nordholm-Carstensen A, Jorgensen LN, Wille-Jørgensen PA, Hansen H, Harling H. Indeterminate pulmonary nodules in colorectal-cancer: do radiologists agree. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(2):543–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Restivo A, Zorcolo L, Piga S, Cocco IM, Casula G. Routine preoperative chest computed tomography does not influence therapeutic strategy in patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(5):e216–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yoo HY, Shin R, Ha HK, et al. Does t3 subdivision correlate with nodal or distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012;28(3):160–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu ZY, Wan J, Li JH, et al. Prognostic value of lateral lymph node metastasis for advanced low rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(45):6048–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu Q, Luo D, Cai S, Li Q, Li X. Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic factor after rectal cancer surgery: A large population-based retrospective study. Cancer Med. 2018;7(8):3673–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sohn B, Lim JS, Kim H, et al. MRI-detected extramural vascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor for synchronous metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(5):1347–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yu J, Huang DY, Li Y, Dai X, Shi HB. Correlation of standard diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging with distant metastases of rectal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;44(1):221–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Weiser MR. AJCC 8th edition: Colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(6):1454–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lambregts DM, Beets GL, Maas M, et al. Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2567–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu H, Jensen JH, Ramani A, Helpern JA. Three-dimensional characterization of non-gaussian water diffusion in humans using diffusion kurtosis imaging. NMR Biomed. 2006;19(2):236–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiol. 1988;168(2):497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gaitanidis A, Alevizakos M, Tsaroucha A, Tsalikidis C, Pitiakoudis M. Predictive Nomograms for Synchronous Distant Metastasis in Rectal Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(7):1268–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sugihara K, Kobayashi H, Kato T, et al. Indication and benefit of pelvic sidewall dissection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(11):1663–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Park JS, Huh JW, Park YA, et al. A circumferential resection margin of 1 mm is a negative prognostic factor in rectal cancer patients with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(8):933–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Al-Sukhni E, Milot L, Fruitman M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for assessment of T category, lymph node metastases, and circumferential resection margin involvement in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(7):2212–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Koh DM, Scurr E, Collins DJ, et al. Colorectal hepatic metastases: quantitative measurements using single-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(9):1898–905.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lemke A, Laun FB, Klauss M, et al. Differentiation of pancreas carcinoma from healthy pancreatic tissue using multiple b-values: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters. Invest Radiol. 2009;44(12):769–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu H, Zhang C, Wang L, et al. MRI radiomics analysis for predicting preoperative synchronous distant metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(8):4418–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hu SX, Yang K, Wang XR, et al. Application of MRI-based radiomics models in the assessment of hepatic metastasis of rectal cancer. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2021;52(2):311–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhao L, Liang M, Yang Y, Zhao X, Zhang H. Histogram models based on intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging to predict nodal staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2021;142: 109869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was mainly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81671743), the Clinical Key diseases diagnosis and therapy Special project of Health and Family Planning Commission of Suzhou (LCZX201801),the High-level Health Personnel “six-one” Project of Jiangsu Province (LGY2016035), Program for Advanced Talents within Six Industries of Jiangsu Province (WSW-057),Suzhou Health Youth backbone talents "National tutorial system" training Project (20021) and the international team of gastrointestinal tumor project funding (SZYJTD201804).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xue Ding and Danqi Sun these authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Wanan Medical College, NO.2 Zheshanxi Road, Wuhu City, Anhui Province, 241000, China

    Xue Ding

  2. Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, NO.899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, 215004, China

    Danqi Sun & Yonggang Li

  3. Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, NO.1055 Sanxiang Road, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, 215004, China

    Qiuchen Guo, Yeting Li, Hao Chen, Guohua Fan & Guangqiang Chen

  4. Department of Pathology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, NO.1055 Sanxiang Road, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, 215004, China

    Xiaoxiao Dai

  5. Department of General Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, NO.1055 Sanxiang Road, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, 215004, China

    Yongyou Wu

Authors
  1. Xue Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danqi Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiuchen Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yeting Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiaoxiao Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Guohua Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yongyou Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guangqiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yonggang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.C. and YG.L.(Yonggang Li) designed the design of the whole study, they are co-corresponding authors. X.D.(Xue Ding) and D.S. conducted data processing and statistical analysis, X.D. was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. Clinical and imaging data were collected by H.C. YT.L.(Yeting Li) 、Q.G. and H.C. collected clinical data and images. G.F. Y.W. G.C. YG.L. and XX.D.(Xiaoxiao Dai) confirmed the distant metastasis of rectal cancer. G.C. and YG.L. contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-corresponding authors. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Guangqiang Chen or Yonggang Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All experimental protocols were approved by Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University.All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.Informed consent was obtained from all participants or, if participants are under 18, from a parent and/or legal guardian.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ding, X., Sun, D., Guo, Q. et al. The value of diffusion kurtosis imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion quantitative parameters in predicting synchronous distant metastasis of rectal cancer. BMC Cancer 22, 920 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10022-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10022-7

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us