结直肠癌旁肿瘤沉积的CT检查影像学特征及鉴别诊断

CT characteristics and differential diagnosis of tumor deposition adjacent to colorectal cancer

  • 摘要: 目的:总结结直肠癌旁肿瘤沉积的CT检查影像学特征,旨在为鉴别诊断提供依据。
    方法:
    采用回顾性横断面研究方法。收集2015年5月至2017年4月南京医科大学附属无锡第二医院收治的 26例结直肠癌患者的临床病理资料。患者术前均行多层螺旋CT平扫和双期增强扫描检查,并行开腹手术治疗。观察指标:(1)CT检查影像学特征。(2)鉴别比较。(3)随访情况。采用电话方式进行随访,每3个月随访1次;随访内容为患者预后情况,随访时间截至2017年5月。正态分布的计量资料以±s表示,两组比较采用t检验;多组比较采用单因素方差分析,两两比较采用SNK法。
    结果:(1)CT检查影像学特征:26例患者中,行胸、腹、盆腔双期增强扫描17例,行腹、盆腔双期增强扫描9例;原发肿瘤位于结肠18例,直肠8例。26例患者共收集41枚肿瘤沉积,肿瘤沉积数目为(1.6±0.9)枚/例,数目<3枚20例,数目≥ 3枚6例。41枚肿瘤沉积中,肿瘤沉积常孤立存在于直肠或结肠周围脂肪间隙中,与周围原发肿瘤或淋巴结不连续,其中心距原发肿瘤中心距离为(2.6±1.0)cm(0.2~5.0 cm),距离<2.6 cm 22例,≥2.6 cm 19例;其中33枚可见分叶征,22枚可见毛刺征,7枚可见液化坏死,同一枚肿瘤沉积可合并多种影像学特征。41枚肿瘤沉积的长径、短径、最大径线、平扫CT值、动脉期CT强化值、静脉期CT强化值分别为(1.15±0.60)cm、(1.11±0.44)cm、(1.13±0.49)cm、(27±13)HU、(28±14)HU、(49±19)HU。41枚肿瘤沉积中, 34枚平扫密度均匀,增强扫描早期强化明显,且呈均匀强化;7枚平扫密度不均匀,内部可见液化坏死,增强扫描坏死区域无强化,非坏死区域早期强化明显。(2)鉴别比较:26患者均行开腹手术,其中右半结肠切除术8例、横结肠切除术2例、左半结肠切除术4例、单纯乙状结肠切除术2例、腹会阴联合直肠癌切除术2例、直肠低位前切除术8例,术后给予个体化对症治疗。收集距原发肿瘤中心5.0 cm内经病理学检查证实的淋巴结52枚,其中转移淋巴结19枚。41枚肿瘤沉积中,33枚形态不规则,8枚形态规则呈类圆形或类椭圆形;19枚转移淋巴结中,16枚形态规则呈类圆形,1枚淋巴结形态欠规则且边缘模糊,2枚淋巴结形态不规则且相互融合。19枚转移淋巴结的长径、短径、最大径线分别为(1.09±0.33) cm、(1.01±0.23)cm、(1.05±0.20)cm,与肿瘤沉积上述指标比较,差异均有统计学意义(t=5.48,4.80,7.75,P<0.05)。19枚转移淋巴结平扫CT值、动脉期CT强化值、静脉期CT强化值分别为(12±7)HU、(18±12)HU、(42±15)HU; 26例原发肿瘤平扫CT值、动脉期CT强化值、静脉期CT强化值分别为(33±6)HU、(31±15)HU、(53± 14)HU。肿瘤沉积、转移淋巴结及原发肿瘤平扫CT值、动脉期CT强化值比较,差异均有统计学意义(F=24.43,4.46,P<0.05),3者静脉期CT强化值比较,差异无统计学意义(F=2.41,P>0.05)。肿瘤沉积与转移淋巴结平扫CT值、动脉期CT强化值比较,差异均有统计学意义(q=5.48,2.50,P<0.05),转移淋巴结与原发肿瘤平扫CT值、动脉期CT强化值比较,差异均有统计学意义(q=6.82,2.84,P<0.05),肿瘤沉积与原发肿瘤平扫CT值、动脉期CT强化值比较,差异均无统计学意义(q=2.15,0.65,P>0.05)。19枚转移淋巴结中,11枚平扫密度均匀,密度较肿瘤沉积及原发肿瘤低,增强扫描动脉期呈相对均匀强化;8枚平扫密度不均匀,内部可见液化坏死,增强扫描呈“环形强化”,坏死区域无强化。肿瘤沉积不仅平扫密度与原发肿瘤密度相近,而且在动静脉期强化幅度上也与原发肿瘤相近。(3)随访情况:24例患者获得随访,随访率为92.3%(24/26),随访时间为1~25个月,中位随访时间为17个月。24例患者中,2例死亡,生存时间分别为9个月及21个月;22例生存情况良好。
    结论:肿瘤沉积的多层螺旋CT检查影像学特征表现为形态较大且不规则,呈分叶、毛刺,平扫密度接近原发肿瘤,增强扫描动脉早期强化明显;而转移性淋巴结形态多为类圆形,直径小于肿瘤沉积,平扫密度及增强扫描动脉期CT强化值均低于肿瘤沉积。

     

    Abstract: Objective:To summarize the CT characteristics of tumor deposition adjacent to colorectal cancer (CRC), and provide the evidences for differential diagnosis.
    Methods:The retrospective crosssectional study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 26 CRC patients who were admitted to the Wuxi Second People′s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from May 2015 to April 2017 were collected. Patients underwent preoperative multislice spiral CT scan and doublephase enhanced scan, and then received open surgery. Observation indicators: (1) characteristics of multislice spiral CT scan; (2) differential comparisons; (3) followup. Followup using telephone interview was performed to detect patients′ prognosis once every 3 months up to May 2017. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as ±s. Comparisons between groups and among groups were respectively analyzed using the t test and the oneway ANOVA. Pairwise comparison was done using the SNK method.
    Results: (1) Characteristics of multislice spiral CT scan: of 26 patients, 17 underwent double contrast enhanced scans of chest, abdomen and pelvic and 9 underwent double contrast scans of abdomen and pelvic. Primary tumors of 18 and 8 patients respectively located in the colon and rectum. Fortyone tumor deposits of 26 patients were collected, with number of tumor deposits of 1.6±0.9 per case, and number of tumor deposits <3 and ≥3 respectively were found in 20 and 6 patients. Tumor deposits were often isolated in the fat spaces around the rectum or colon and unconnected with the surrounding primary tumor or lymph node. Distance to the center of primary tumor was (2.6±1.0)cm (range, 0.2-5.0 cm), the distance <2.6 cm and ≥2.6 cm were respectively detected in 22 and 19 patients. Thirtythree tumors showed signs of lobulation, 22 showed signs of burr and 7 showed liquefaction necrosis, and there was a combination of multiple imaging characteristics in the same tumor deposit. The maximum width, minimum width, maximum diameter, plain scan value of CT, CT enhancement values in the arterial phase and venous phase in 41 tumor deposits were respectively (1.15±0.60)cm, (1.11±0.44)cm, (1.13±0.49)cm, (27±13)HU, (28±14)HU and (49±19)HU. Of 41 tumor deposits, 34 demonstrated homogeneous density in the plain scan, and obviously enhancement in early enhanced scan, with homogeneous enhancement; 7 demonstrated heterogeneous density in the plain scan, with internal liquefaction necrosis, and enhanced scans showed no enhancement in the areas of necrosis and obviously early enhancement in the areas of nonnecrosis. (2) Differential comparisons: 26 patients underwent open surgery, including 8 with right hemectomy, 2 with transverse colon resection, 4 with left semicolon resection, 2 with simple sigmoid resection, 2 with abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer and 8 with low anterior rectal resection, and all patients received postoperatively individualized treatment. Fiftytwo lymph nodes with distance to center of primary tumor < 5.0 cm that were confirmed by pathological examination were collected, including 19 metastatic lymph nodes. Of 41 tumor deposits, 33 were irregular, and 8 were regular and roundlike or ovallike shape. Of 19 metastatic lymph nodes, 16 were regularly roundlike shape, 1 showed irregular shape and edge blur, and 2 were irregular with a mutual integration. The maximum width, minimum width and maximum diameter of 19 metastatic lymph nodes were respectively (1.09±0.33)cm, (1.01±0.23)cm and (1.05±0.20)cm, with statistically significant differences in the above indicators between metastatic lymph nodes and tumor deposits (t=5.48, 4.80, 7.75, P<0.05). The plain scan value of CT, CT enhancement values in the arterial phase and venous phase were respectively (12±7)HU, (18±12)HU, (42±15)HU in 19 metastatic lymph nodes and (33±6)HU, (31± 15)HU, (53±14)HU in 26 primary tumors, showing statistically significant differences in the plain scan value of CT and CT enhancement values in the arterial phase among tumor deposits, metastatic lymph nodes and primary tumors (F=24.43, 4.46, P<0.05), and no statistically significant difference in CT enhancement value in the venous phase (F=2.41, P>0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the plain scan value of CT and CT enhancement values in the arterial phase between tumor deposits and metastatic lymph nodes (q=5.48, 2.50, P<0.05) and between metastatic lymph nodes and primary tumors (q=6.82, 2.84, P<0.05), and no statistically significant difference between tumor deposits and primary tumors (q=2.15, 0.65, P>0.05). Of 19 metastatic lymph nodes, 11 demonstrated homogeneous density in plain scan, with a lower density compared with tumor deposits and primary tumors, and relatively homogeneous enhancement in the arterial phase of enhanced scan; 8 demonstrated heterogeneous density with internal liquefaction necrosis, and ringshaped enhancement in enhanced scan with no enhancement in the areas of necrosis. The density and enhancement range in the arterial phase and venous phase of tumor deposits were similar to primary tumors. (3) Followup: 24 patients were followed up for 1-25 months, with a followup rate of 92.3%(24/26) and a median time of 17 months. Of 24 patients, 2 were dead, and survival time were respectively 9 months and 21 months; 22 had good survival.
    Conclusions: Multislice spiral CT examination of tumor deposits demonstrates larger and irregular shape, with the signs of lobulation and burr, and the density in plain scan is similar to the primary tumor, with obviously enhancement in early enhanced scan. The metastatic lymph nodes are mostly roundlike shape, diameter is smaller than that of tumor deposits, density in the plain scan and CT enhancement values in the arterial phase are lower than that of tumor deposits.

     

/

返回文章
返回