Comparison of Early Submucosal Enhancement and Tumor Stalk in Staging Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of submucosal enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and detection of a stalk on DWI for differentiating stage T1 from stage T2 bladder urothelial carcinoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Our prospective study was approved by the institutional medical ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Fifty-nine patients (92 tumors in total) with urothelial bladder cancer underwent MRI within 2 weeks before surgery. Two image sets of T2-weighted MRI with DWI and T2-weighted with DCE-MRI were interpreted independently at 2-week intervals by two uroradiologists without any knowledge of the surgical or histologic findings. The tumor was categorized as stage T1 or lower when a stalk was evident at the tumor base on DWI or when continuous linear submucosal enhancement was detected in the early phase of DCE-MRI. Tumors without stalks or with discontinuous linear submucosal enhancement were categorized as stage T2. RESULTS Of the 42 tumors with stalks on DWI, 41 showed continuous and one had discontinuous submucosal enhancement on DCE-MRI. In 50 carcinomas without stalks on DWI, submucosal enhancement was absent in 34, continuous in 12, and discontinuous in four. The staging accuracy of DWI (91.3%, 84/92) and DCE-MRI (91.3%, 84/92) was improved to 94.6% (87/92) by combining the interpretations of both DWI and DCE-MRI. CONCLUSION Submucosal linear enhancement under the tumor base on DCE-MRI complements tumor stalk detection on DWI for differentiating stage T1 from stage T2 bladder urothelial carcinoma.

[1]  Yuta Shibamoto,et al.  Urinary bladder cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging--accuracy for diagnosing T stage and estimating histologic grade. , 2009, Radiology.

[2]  H. Hricak,et al.  Urinary bladder MR imaging. Part II. Neoplasm. , 1985, Radiology.

[3]  M. Amanuma,et al.  Histopathological analysis of a bladder cancer stalk observed on MRI. , 2000, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[4]  A. Moss,et al.  MR staging of bladder carcinoma: correlation with pathologic findings. , 1988, Radiology.

[5]  Tarek El-Diasty,et al.  Bladder cancer: diagnosis with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with gross hematuria. , 2009, Radiology.

[6]  Fuminari Tatsugami,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for urinary bladder carcinoma: initial results , 2006, European Radiology.

[7]  Kazutaka Saito,et al.  Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in bladder cancer: potential utility of apparent diffusion coefficient values as a biomarker to predict clinical aggressiveness , 2011, European Radiology.

[8]  Jian Guan,et al.  Multiparametric 3-T MRI for differentiating low-versus high-grade and category T1 versus T2 bladder urothelial carcinoma. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  T. El-Diasty,et al.  Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Diagnosis of Superficial and Invasive Urinary Bladder Carcinoma: A Preliminary Prospective Study , 2008, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[10]  J. Heiken,et al.  Primary bladder carcinoma: evaluation with MR imaging. , 1987, Radiology.

[11]  Y. Ohgiya,et al.  Preoperative T staging of urinary bladder cancer: efficacy of stalk detection and diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging at 3T. , 2014, Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

[12]  J. Kawamura,et al.  A new staging criterion for bladder carcinoma using gadolinium‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal surface coil: a comparison with ultrasonography , 2000, BJU international.

[13]  S. Ishiguro,et al.  Bladder wall morphology: in vitro MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. , 1993, Radiology.

[14]  M. Kanematsu,et al.  Preoperative T staging of urinary bladder cancer: does diffusion-weighted MRI have supplementary value? , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.