Literature DB >> 11972270

Routine use of transrectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma: results of a prospective multicenter study.

F Marusch1, A Koch, U Schmidt, R Zippel, R Kuhn, S Wolff, M Pross, A Wierth, I Gastinger, H Lippert.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Preoperative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) can establish the depth of penetration of a tumor, and thus provide important information for decisions about further management. In the literature, this method is reported to have a high level of sensitivity and specificity. Our investigation aimed at establishing the quality of the diagnostic procedure and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This investigation, which covered a 1-year period, and involved 75 hospitals, was conducted in the form of a prospective multicenter study and included a total of 3756 patients. For rectal carcinomas, all endosonographically determined uT categories were compared with histologically established T categories (pT).
RESULTS: At 49 hospitals a total of 499 TRUS examinations in 1463 rectal carcinomas (34.1 %) were performed. A comparison of uT with pT category was possible for 422 TRUS examinations. Agreement between the preoperative endosonographic diagnosis with the histological diagnosis was found in 63.3 % (n = 267) of cases (95 % confidence interval 58.5 % - 67.9 %). The diagnostic accuracy was 50.8 % for pT1 carcinomas, 58.3 % for pT2 lesions, 73.5 % for pT3 tumors, and 44.4 % for pT4 carcinomas. Overstaging was observed in 23.9 %, overall, and understaging in 12.8 %. Understaging was significantly less common than overstaging (P < 0.05, s.).
CONCLUSION: The accuracy of transrectal ultrasound used as a routine clinical examination in rectal carcinoma patients was clearly lower than that reported in the literature. We conclude that TRUS may aid decisions relevant to treatment only when used by well-trained investigators with a large case load of rectal carcinoma patients. Centralization of transrectal ultrasonography service is mandatory if a high level of quality is to be achieved with this method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11972270     DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-25292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  29 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic ultrasonography: imaging and beyond.

Authors:  T Rösch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Development of a cost-effective system for digital off-line analysis of transrectal ultrasound.

Authors:  R Weidenhagen; T Strauss; K U Gruetzner; F W Spelsberg; H O Steitz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-05       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  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

4.  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 5.  Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the loco-regional staging of patients with rectal cancer.

Authors:  Pietro Marone; Mario de Bellis; Valentina D'Angelo; Paolo Delrio; Valentina Passananti; Elena Di Girolamo; Giovanni Battista Rossi; Daniela Rega; Maura Claire Tracey; Alfonso Mario Tempesta
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-06-25

6.  The investigation of primary rectal cancer by surgeons: current pattern of practice.

Authors:  Todd P W McMullen; Alexandra M Easson; Zane Cohen; Carol J Swallow
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  Endorectal ultrasonography versus phased-array magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative staging of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Ahmet-Mesrur Halefoglu; Sadik Yildirim; Omer Avlanmis; Damlanur Sakiz; Adil Baykan
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 8.  [Current imaging for rectal cancer].

Authors:  M S Juchems; A J Aschoff
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 9.  Evolving treatment strategies for colorectal cancer: a critical review of current therapeutic options.

Authors:  Daniel C Damin; Anderson R Lazzaron
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.