BACKGROUND: We performed this study to prospectively evaluate the postchemoradiotherapy performance of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and endoscopic biopsies for predicting the pathologic complete response of rectal cancer patients. METHODS: Four weeks after completion of preoperative chemoradiotherapy, 46 consecutive patients with mid to low rectal cancer were prospectively evaluated by proctoscopy, TRUS, and pelvic CT scan and MRI. On the basis of T and N status, patients were classified as T0 or T1-4 and N-negative or N-positive. For each staging modality used, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated. Findings were compared with the pathologic tumor-node-metastasis stage. RESULTS: On histopathologic analysis, 12 patients had pT0 and 34 had pT1-4 lesions; out of 45 assessable patients, 9 were N-positive. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy in predicting T status (T0 vs. T >or=1) were 77%, 33%, 74%, 36%, and 64%, respectively, for TRUS; 100%, 0%, 74%, not assessable, and 74% for CT; and 100%, 0%, 77%, not assessable, and 77% for MRI. The corresponding figures in predicting N status (N-negative vs. N-positive) were, respectively, 37%, 67%, 21%, 81%, and 61% for TRUS; 78%, 58%, 32%, 91%, and 62% for CT; and 33%, 74%, 25%, 81%, and 65% for MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Current rectal cancer staging modalities after chemoradiotherapy allow good prediction of node-negative cases, although none of them is able to predict the pathologic complete response on the rectal wall.
BACKGROUND: We performed this study to prospectively evaluate the postchemoradiotherapy performance of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and endoscopic biopsies for predicting the pathologic complete response of rectal cancerpatients. METHODS: Four weeks after completion of preoperative chemoradiotherapy, 46 consecutive patients with mid to low rectal cancer were prospectively evaluated by proctoscopy, TRUS, and pelvic CT scan and MRI. On the basis of T and N status, patients were classified as T0 or T1-4 and N-negative or N-positive. For each staging modality used, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated. Findings were compared with the pathologic tumor-node-metastasis stage. RESULTS: On histopathologic analysis, 12 patients had pT0 and 34 had pT1-4 lesions; out of 45 assessable patients, 9 were N-positive. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy in predicting T status (T0 vs. T >or=1) were 77%, 33%, 74%, 36%, and 64%, respectively, for TRUS; 100%, 0%, 74%, not assessable, and 74% for CT; and 100%, 0%, 77%, not assessable, and 77% for MRI. The corresponding figures in predicting N status (N-negative vs. N-positive) were, respectively, 37%, 67%, 21%, 81%, and 61% for TRUS; 78%, 58%, 32%, 91%, and 62% for CT; and 33%, 74%, 25%, 81%, and 65% for MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Current rectal cancer staging modalities after chemoradiotherapy allow good prediction of node-negative cases, although none of them is able to predict the pathologic complete response on the rectal wall.
Authors: Svetlana Balyasnikova; Johan Löfgren; Robin de Nijs; Yanna Zamogilnaya; Liselotte Højgaard; Barbara M Fischer Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-15
Authors: Sasan Partovi; Andres A Kohan; Lisa Zipp; Peter Faulhaber; Christos Kosmas; Pablo R Ros; Mark R Robbin Journal: Int J Clin Exp Med Date: 2014-03-15
Authors: A Barina; A De Paoli; P Delrio; M Guerrieri; A Muratore; F Bianco; D Vespa; C Asteria; E Morpurgo; A Restivo; C Coco; U Pace; C Belluco; C Aschele; S Lonardi; V Valentini; G Mantello; I Maretto; P Del Bianco; A Perin; S Pucciarelli Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Im-Kyung Kim; Jeonghyun Kang; Beom Jin Lim; Seung-Kook Sohn; Kang Young Lee Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Tobias Leibold; Vanessa W Hui; Jinru Shia; Jeannine A Ruby; Elyn R Riedel; José G Guillem Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Sthela M Murad-Regadas; Francisco Sergio P Regadas; Lusmar V Rodrigues; Rosilma G L Barreto; Francisco Coracy C Monteiro; Beethoven B Landim; Erico C Holanda Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584