Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Is There a True Benefit From Diffusion-Weighted Imaging?

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the added value of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with intermediate (500 s/mm²) and high (1000 s/mm²) b values when combined to conventional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying peritoneal neoplastic involvement.

Methods: Twenty-four patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal or gynecological tumors were retrospectively evaluated. All patients underwent peritonectomy with hyperthermic intraoperative chemotherapy and 1.5 T MRI including DWI with 500 s/mm² and 1000 s/mm² b values within 1 month from surgery. Images were independently reviewed by 2 radiologists with different experience in abdominal MRI in 3 separate reading sessions, the first including conventional MR images alone (T2-weighted, T1-weighted pre- and post gadolinium injection), the second conventional MRI and DWI with a b value of 500 s/mm² (b 500-DWI), and the third conventional MRI and DWI with a b value of 1000 s/mm² (b 1000-DWI). Apparent diffusion coefficient maps were included in the DWI analyses. Peritoneal dissemination was assessed in 9 anatomical sites, including right and left subphrenic space, paracolic gutters, small bowel mesentery, greater omentum, gastric-bowel serosa, free peritoneal surfaces, rectosigmoid-colon mesentery, and pelvis. The presence or absence of peritoneal dissemination for each patient and for each site was scored using a 5-point confidence scale. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for identifying per-site peritoneal implants were calculated for each reader at each reading session. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics.

Results: For both readers, the sensitivity and AUC values resulting from combined interpretation of conventional MRI and DWI (both b500-DWI and b1000-DWI) were significantly higher than those of conventional MRI alone (P < 0.001). The added value of DWI was greater for the less experienced reader (sensitivity 0.55, specificity 0.73, AUC 0.64 on conventional MRI; sensitivity 0.75, specificity 0.72, AUC 0.74 on b500-DWI; sensitivity 0.87, specificity 0.72, AUC 0.80 on b1000-DWI) than for the more experienced reader (sensitivity 0.63, specificity 0.75, AUC 0.70 on conventional MRI; sensitivity 0.76, specificity 0.77, AUC 0.77 on b500-DWI; sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.72, AUC 0.79 on b1000-DWI), although the differences between the 2 observers were not statistically significant. Interobserver agreement resulted to be fair (κ = 0.30) when dealing with conventional MRI alone. The addition of b500-DWI and b1000-DWI to conventional MRI allowed to reach a substantial agreement (κ = 0.75).

Conclusions: The combined interpretation of high b value DWI and conventional MRI provides increased sensitivity and diagnostic performance in detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis in oncologic patients.