Literature DB >> 10733115

Local staging of rectal cancer with transrectal ultrasound and endorectal magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with histologic findings.

G F Gualdi1, E Casciani, A Guadalaxara, C d'Orta, E Polettini, G Pappalardo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging with transrectal ultrasound in staging rectal carcinoma.
METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients with rectal carcinoma, histologically proven by endoscopic biopsy, were staged with both endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound and then underwent radical surgery. The preoperative staging was compared with histologic findings of the operative specimen according to TNM classification.
RESULTS: Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging showed better results but was not statistically significantly different from transrectal ultrasound in evaluating T (accuracy, 84.6 vs. 76.9 percent): four overstaged and no understaged cases for the former and five overstaged cases and one understaged case for the latter. Both procedures showed similar results in evaluating N: 81 percent sensitivity and 66 percent specificity for endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 72 percent sensitivity and 80 percent specificity for transrectal ultrasound.
CONCLUSIONS: An accurate locoregional staging of rectal cancer is essential for the planning of optimal therapy for rectal cancer. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound showed similar results; the former is more expensive, whereas the latter is operator dependent. At present the use of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging seems to be justified only in selected low rectal cancers where transrectal ultrasound yielded doubtful results. However, a more extensive study is necessary to compare the advantages of these diagnostic techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10733115     DOI: 10.1007/bf02258299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  32 in total

1.  Preoperative staging of rectal cancer: accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Chan Kyo Kim; Seung Hoon Kim; Ho Kyung Chun; Woo-Yong Lee; Seong-Hyeon Yun; Sang-Yong Song; Dongil Choi; Hyo Keun Lim; Min Ju Kim; Jongmee Lee; Soon Jin Lee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  The impact of new technology on surgery for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  G B Makin; D J Breen; J R Monson
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Endorectal ultrasound: its role in the diagnosis and treatment of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Bret R Edelman; Martin R Weiser
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2008-08

Review 4.  Multimodal imaging evaluation in staging of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Suk Hee Heo; Jin Woong Kim; Sang Soo Shin; Yong Yeon Jeong; Heoung-Keun Kang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Management of a locally advanced rectal cancer in a patient who declined surgery.

Authors:  Raafat Alameddine; David Wehbe; Martin Weiser; Neil Segal; Karyn Goodman; Ali Shamseddine; Celina Ang; Ali Haydar; Mustafa Sidani; Fady Geara; Mohamed Naghy; Eileen M O'Reilly; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2012-11

6.  Factors affecting management decisions in rectal cancer in clinical practice: results from a national survey.

Authors:  A Habr-Gama; R O Perez; G P São Julião; I Proscurshim; S C Nahas; J Gama-Rodrigues
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 3.781

7.  Anorectal malignant melanoma: preoperative usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Hiroyoshi Matsuoka; Akihisa Nakamura; Kaori Iwamoto; Masanori Sugiyama; Junichi Hachiya; Yutaka Atomi; Tadahiko Masaki
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.527

8.  Colorectal Carcinoma: Local Tumor Staging and Assessment of Lymph Node Metastasis by High-Resolution MR Imaging in Surgical Specimens.

Authors:  Ichiro Yamada; Norio Yoshino; Akemi Tetsumura; Satoshi Okabe; Masayuki Enomoto; Kenichi Sugihara; Jiro Kumagai; Hitoshi Shibuya
Journal:  Int J Biomed Imaging       Date:  2010-01-31

9.  Association between surgeon characteristics and their preferences for guideline-concordant staging and treatment for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Mary E Charlton; Lorren R Mattingly-Wells; Jorge E Marcet; Brenna C McMahon Waldschmidt; John W Cromwell
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2014-06-08       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 10.  Squamous cell cancer of the rectum.

Authors:  Tara Dyson; Peter V Draganov
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-09-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.