
Accuracy of Inchworm Sign on Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Differentiating Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Author(s) -
Hüseyin Özgür Kazan,
Meftun Çulpan,
Nesrin Gündüz,
Ferhat Keser,
Ayberk İplikçi,
Ramazan Gökhan Atış,
Asıf Yıldırım
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
bladder cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.27
H-Index - 19
eISSN - 2352-3735
pISSN - 2352-3727
DOI - 10.3233/blc-211535
Subject(s) - medicine , bladder cancer , magnetic resonance imaging , diffusion mri , genitourinary system , radiology , positive predicative value , cancer , predictive value
BACKGROUND: Inchworm sign is a finding on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI-MRI) and is used to better stratify T-staging in muscle invasive (MIBC) and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). An uninterrupted low submucosal signal on DWI, defined as inchworm sign (IS), indicates NMIBC. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to define the diagnostic accuracy of IS in primary bladder cancer, as well as find agreement between the urologists and the radiologist. METHODS: Between December 2018 and December 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 95 primary bladder cancer patients who had undergone multiparametric-MRI before transurethral resection. Patients with former bladder cancer history, tumors smaller than 10 mm, and MRI without proper protocol, as well as patients who did not attend follow-up, were excluded. In total, 71 patients’ images were evaluated by a genitourinary specialist radiologist and two urologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of IS and VI-RADS in differentiating MIBC and NMIBC, and interreader agreement between the radiologist and urologists were analyzed. RESULTS: During follow-up, 38 patients (53.5%) were IS-positive, while 33 patients (46.5%) were negative. Among the 33 patients with negative IS, 14 patients (42.4%) had MIBC. Meanwhile, two out of the 38 IS-positive patients (5.3%) had MIBC (p = 0.00). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of IS in predicting MIBC were 87.5%, 63.6%, 41.2%and 94.6%, respectively. The interobserver agreement between the urologists and radiologist was almost perfect (K = 0.802 and K = 0.745) CONCLUSION: The absence of IS on DWI is useful in differentiating MIBC from NMIBC. It is a simple finding that can be interpreted by urologists.