Related Experiment Video For Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of an Orthotopic Pancreatic Cancer Mouse Model
Published on: April 18, 2015
Comparison Between Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging With
Jeongin Yoo1, Jeong Min Lee1,2,3, Hyo-Jin Kang1,2
1Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Objective:
To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement between contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for evaluating the resectability in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA).
Materials And Methods:
This retrospective study included treatment-naïve patients with pathologically confirmed eCCA, who underwent both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP using extracellular contrast media between January 2015 and December 2020. Among the 214 patients (146 males; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 9 years) included, 121 (56.5%) had perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. R0 resection was achieved in 108 of the 153 (70.6%) patients who underwent curative-intent surgery. Four fellowship-trained radiologists independently reviewed the findings of both CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP to assess the local tumor extent and distant metastasis for determining resectability. The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were compared using clinical, surgical, and pathological findings as reference standards. The interobserver agreement of resectability was evaluated using Fleiss kappa (κ).
Results:
No significant differences were observed between CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP in the pooled AUC (0.753 vs. 0.767), sensitivity (84.7% [366/432] vs. 90.3% [390/432]), and specificity (52.6% [223/424] vs. 51.4% [218/424]) (P > 0.05 for all). The AUC for determining resectability was higher when CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP were reviewed together than when CECT was reviewed alone in patients with discrepancies between the imaging modalities or with indeterminate resectability (0.798 [0.754-0.841] vs. 0.753 [0.697-0.808], P = 0.014). The interobserver agreement for overall resectability was fair for both CECT (κ = 0.323) and CE-MRI with MRCP (κ = 0.320), without a significant difference (P = 0.884).
Conclusion:
CECT and CE-MRI with MRCP showed no significant differences in the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement in determining the resectability in patients with eCCA.
