Literature DB >> 12732695

Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison.

Gina Brown1, Catherine J Richards, Michael W Bourne, Robert G Newcombe, Andrew G Radcliffe, Nicholas S Dallimore, Geraint T Williams.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate signal intensity and border characteristics of lymph nodes at high-spatial-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in patients with rectal cancer and to compare these findings with size in prediction of nodal status.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients who underwent total mesorectal excision of the rectum to determine if they had rectal carcinoma were studied with preoperative thin-section MR imaging. Lymph nodes were harvested from 42 transversely sectioned surgical specimens. The slice of each lymph node was carefully matched with its location on the corresponding MR images. Nodal size, border contour, and signal intensity on MR images were characterized and related to histologic involvement with metastases. Differences in sensitivity and specificity with border or signal intensity were calculated with CIs by using method 10 of Newcombe.
RESULTS: Of the 437 nodes harvested, 102 were too small (<3 mm) to be depicted on MR images, and only two of these contained metastases. In 15 (68%) of 22 patients with nodal metastases, the size of normal or reactive nodes was equal to or greater than that of positive nodes in the same specimen. Fifty-one nodes were above the area imaged, and seven of these contained metastases. The diameter of benign and malignant nodes was similar; therefore, size was a poor predictor of nodal status. If a node was defined as suspicious because of an irregular border or mixed signal intensity, a superior accuracy was obtained and resulted in a sensitivity of 51 (85%) of 60 (95% CI: 74%, 92%) and a specificity of 216 (97%) of 221 (95% CI: 95%, 99%).
CONCLUSION: Prediction of nodal involvement in rectal cancer with MR imaging is improved by using the border contour and signal intensity characteristics of lymph nodes instead of size criteria. Copyright RSNA, 2003

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12732695     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2272011747

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  182 in total

1.  Cell-free DNA and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Anders Kindberg Boysen; Jakob Vasehus Schou; Karen-Lise Garm Spindler
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  Anal carcinomas: the role of endoanal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in staging, response evaluation and follow-up.

Authors:  Jyoti Parikh; Aidan Shaw; Lee A Grant; Alexis M P Schizas; Vivek Datta; Andrew B Williams; Nyree Griffin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-03       Impact factor: 5.315

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.  Morphological characteristics of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in rectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Hiroyoshi Matsuoka; Tadahiko Masaki; Masanori Sugiyama; Yutaka Atomi; Yasuo Ohkura; Atsuhiko Sakamoto
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2007-03-23       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 5.  Preoperative evaluation of colorectal cancer using CT colonography, MRI, and PET/CT.

Authors:  Shigeyoshi Kijima; Takahiro Sasaki; Koichi Nagata; Kenichi Utano; Alan T Lefor; Hideharu Sugimoto
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  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

7.  Long-Term Outcomes and Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients Receiving Radical Surgery for Pathological T1 Lower Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Daichi Kitaguchi; Takeshi Sasaki; Yuji Nishizawa; Yuichiro Tsukada; Masaaki Ito
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Factors related to preoperative assessment of the circumferential resection margin and the extent of mesorectal invasion by magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer: a prospective comparison study.

Authors:  Young-Wan Kim; Seung-Whan Cha; Juyon Pyo; Nam-Kyu Kim; Byung-Soh Min; Myeong-Jin Kim; Hoguen Kim
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Accuracy of Various Lymph Node Staging Criteria in Rectal Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Jörn Gröne; Florian N Loch; Matthias Taupitz; C Schmidt; Martin E Kreis
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Pelvic MRI after induction chemotherapy and before long-course chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer: What are the imaging findings?

Authors:  Marc J Gollub; Ivana Blazic; David D B Bates; Naomi Campbell; Andrea Knezevic; Mithat Gonen; Patricio Lynn; Martin R Weiser; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Andreas M Hötker; Andrea Cercek; Leonard Saltz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.