Literature DB >> 1959456

Prospective comparative study of magnetic resonance imaging versus transrectal ultrasound for preoperative staging and follow-up of rectal cancer. Preliminary report.

A Waizer1, E Powsner, I Russo, S Hadar, S Cytron, R Lombrozo, Y Wolloch, E Antebi.   

Abstract

The efficiency of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and that of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) were compared in preoperative staging of 15 patients with rectal cancer and in postoperative follow-up of 12 patients. Thirteen of the 15 patients evaluated for preoperative staging were operated on. Preoperative staging and pathologic finding were identical in 11 patients (84.6 percent) examined by TRUS and in 10 patients (76.9 percent) examined by MRI. Recurrent cancer was detected in 3 of 12 patients in the follow-up group. MRI was able to diagnose correctly 10 of 12 patients (83.2 percent), one patient was misdiagnosed, and in one patient the MRI could not distinguish between fibrous tissue and recurrent cancer. TRUS diagnosed correctly only 5 of 12 patients (41.6 percent). One was falsely diagnosed, and, in 6 patients (50 percent), this examination could not differentiate between fibrous tissue and recurrent tumor. According to our results, both MRI and TRUS have a place in the preoperative staging of patients with rectal cancer. The main differences between the two methods were in the differential diagnoses of fibrous tissue and recurrent cancer. MRI being more specific in detection of recurrence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1959456     DOI: 10.1007/bf02050063

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Does a learning curve exist in endorectal two-dimensional ultrasound accuracy?

Authors:  O J Morris; B Draganic; S Smith
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2011-07-09       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 3.  The current landscape of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  Mebea Aklilu; Cathy Eng
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 66.675

4.  Role of Transrectal Ultrasound in Preoperative Local Staging of Carcinoma Rectum and It's Histopathological Correlation.

Authors:  Surendra Patel; Rajendra Soni; K C Gupta; Jagdish Sharma; Kusum Meena
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2012-06-16       Impact factor: 0.656

5.  Three-dimensional endosonography for staging of rectal cancer.

Authors:  M Hünerbein; P M Schlag
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Preoperative evaluation of pelvic lateral lymph node of patients with lower rectal cancer: comparison study of MR imaging and CT in 53 patients.

Authors:  Kazuo Arii; Katsunari Takifuji; Shozo Yokoyama; Kenji Matsuda; Takashi Higashiguchi; Toshiji Tominaga; Yoshimasa Oku; Masaji Tani; Hiroki Yamaue
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2006-07-18       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 7.  Can endoscopic ultrasound predict early rectal cancers that can be resected endoscopically? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Srinivas R Puli; Matthew L Bechtold; Jyotsna B K Reddy; Abhishek Choudhary; Mainor R Antillon
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 8.  Primary tumour staging of gastric and colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J N Bruneton; E Francois; B Padovani; C Raffaelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Surgeon-performed ultrasound: its use in clinical practice.

Authors:  G S Rozycki
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Endorectal ultrasonography for staging small rectal tumors: technique and contribution to treatment.

Authors:  R J Detry; A Kartheuser; P J Kestens
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1993 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.