Radiopathological review of small bowel carcinoid tumours

Performance of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Negative Versus Positive Enteric Contrast for Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Routine computed tomography (CT) scans are thought to have poor performance for detection of gastrointestinal (GI) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), which leads to delayed workup. Detection of even 1 bowel tumor can guide diagnostic workup and management. The purposes of this study were to assess the accuracy of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and to compare negative versus positive enteric contrast in detecting at least 1 GI tumor per patient with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of a NEN.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 107 patients with intravenous and oral contrast (65 positive, 40 negative, and 2 no oral contrast) abdominopelvic MDCT. Two abdominal radiologists independently analyzed the CTs for detection and localization of bowel NENs. Surgical pathology was considered the reference standard. Analyses included κ and summary statistics, McNemar test, Pearson χ2 test, and Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Among the 107 CT scans, there were 30 pathology negative studies and 77 studies with positive pathology for GI NEN. Interreader agreement for CT evaluation was substantial (κ = 0.61). At least 1 GI NEN per patient was detected with 51% to 53% sensitivity, 87% to 93% specificity, 91% to 95% positive predictive value (PPV), 42% negative predictive value, and 63% accuracy for each reader, and 57% accuracy when only the concordant (ie, matching) results of the 2 readers were considered. Computed tomography scans with negative enteric contrast had significantly higher sensitivity for concordant results than CTs with positive enteric contrast (58% vs 30%, P = 0.01). Specificity (100% vs 95%, P = 0.5), PPV (100% vs 93%, P = 0.49), negative predictive value (39% vs 39%, P = 0.99), and accuracy (67% vs 51%, P = 0.10) were not significantly different for negative versus positive enteric contrast for the concordant results. There was no significant difference in GI NEN localization between the readers.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine MDCT with either positive or negative enteric contrast can detect at least 1 GI tumor per patient with more than 90% PPV and more than 50% accuracy in patients suspected of GI NEN. Using negative enteric contrast improves sensitivity for GI NEN versus positive enteric contrast. In addition, there is high accuracy in localizing the bowel tumor with positive or negative enteric contrast, which may guide surgery. Radiologists should have heightened awareness that evaluating such scans closely may lead to detection of primary bowel NENs at a higher rate than previously reported.

CT detection of primary and metastatic ileal carcinoid tumor: rates of missed findings and associated delay in clinical diagnosis

PURPOSE

To determine the rate of missed CT findings of ileal carcinoid tumor prior to pathologic diagnosis and the resultant diagnostic delay.

METHODS

Initially, 74 patients with abdominal and pelvic CT prior to pathologically-proven diagnosis of ileal carcinoid were identified. Patients were excluded when the original CT study (n = 6) or report (n = 4) was not available, resulting in a final cohort of 64 patients (mean age, 58.3 years; 29 M/35F); 27 (42%) patients had more than one abdominal CT prior to diagnosis. All available CT studies prior to diagnosis were retrospectively reviewed for the presence of the primary ileal tumor and metastatic disease (mesenteric and hepatic).

RESULTS

Primary ileal tumors were prospectively missed on at least one CT scan in 64% (32/50) of patients with retrospectively identifiable disease. CT findings of mesenteric spread were missed at least once in 46% (25/54) of cases where present in retrospect. By the final pre-operative CT, hepatic metastases and bowel wall thickening were present in 55% (35/64) and 52% (33/64) of cases, respectively. In patients with missed ileal and/or mesenteric findings resulting in diagnostic delay, mean delay was 40 months (range 4-98 months).

CONCLUSION

Initial presentation of ileal carcinoid tumor, even with mesenteric involvement, is often missed prospectively at abdominal CT, leading to delay in diagnosis until bowel or mesenteric findings become more obvious, or hepatic metastatic disease manifests. Radiologists should make a concerted effort to evaluate the bowel and mesentery in patients with long-standing vague abdominal symptoms.

Small bowel tumors: spectrum of findings on 64-section CT enteroclysis with pathologic correlation

Improvements in helical technology have made detection of benign and malignant small bowel tumors easier so that they are now frequently detected at an early stage. Sixty-four-section CT enteroclysis provides suggestive features that help determine the actual nature of a small bowel tumor in a large number of cases. Specific diagnosis of small bowel tumor is based on a combination of findings that are depicted owing to the use of the multiple capabilities of 64-section CT enteroclysis, allowing optimal planning prior to endoscopic or surgical resection.

Imaging of malignant neoplasms of the mesenteric small bowel: new trends and perspectives

This article describes the recent advances in radiological imaging of malignant neoplasms of the mesenteric small bowel and provides an outline of new trends and perspectives that can be anticipated. The introduction of multidetector row technology, which allows the acquisition of submillimeter and isotropic voxels, has dramatically improved the capabilities of computed tomography in the investigation of the mesenteric small bowel. This technology combined with optimal filling of small bowel loops through the use of appropriate enteral contrast agents has markedly changed small bowel imaging. Computed tomography-enteroclysis, which is based on direct infusion of enteral contrast agent into the mesenteric small bowel through a naso-jejunal tube, provides optimal luminal distension. By contrast, computed tomography-enterography is based on oral administration of enteral contrast agent. These two techniques are now well-established ones for the detection and the characterization of small bowel neoplasms. During the same time, combining the advantages of unsurpassed soft tissue contrast and lack of ionizing radiation, magnetic resonance imaging has gained wide acceptance for the evaluation of patients with suspected small bowel neoplasms. Rapid magnetic resonance imaging sequences used in combination with specific enteral contrast agents generate superb images of the mesenteric small bowel so that magnetic resonance-enteroclysis and magnetic resonance-enterography are now considered as effective diagnostic tools for both the detection and the characterization of neoplasms of the mesenteric small bowel. Recent improvements in image post-processing capabilities help obtain realistic three-dimensional representations of tumors and virtual enteroscopic views of the small bowel that are useful for the surgeon and the gastroenteroenteologist to plan surgical or endoscopic interventions. Along with a better knowledge of the potential and limitations of wireless capsule endoscopy and new endoscopic techniques, these recent developments in radiological imaging reasonably suggest that substantial changes in the investigation of small bowel tumors may be anticipated in a near future, thus potentially create a new paradigm shift after standard small bowel follow-through study has been universally abandoned.