Literature DB >> 19603224

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.

Young-Wan Kim1, Seung-Whan Cha, Juyon Pyo, Nam-Kyu Kim, Byung-Soh Min, Myeong-Jin Kim, Hoguen Kim.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to identify factors related to inaccurate prediction of circumferential resection margin (CRM) and the extent of mesorectal invasion (EMI) in T3 tumors by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in rectal cancer.
METHODS: A total of 66 patients with rectal cancer were enrolled prospectively in this study. CRM was defined as the distance from the outer tumor margin to the mesorectal fascia, and EMI was defined as the distance from the outer surface of the muscularis propria to the outermost tumor margin. CRM and EMI measurements on MRI were compared with corresponding measurements from whole-mount sections using 1-mm and 5-mm reference values, respectively, as prognostic indicators. The following variables were analyzed for relevance to preoperative staging: tumor distance from the anal verge (lower and middle), tumor location (anterior and posterior), tumor (T) and nodal (N) stage, and the thickness of the perirectal fat (anterior, left, right, and posterior positions).
RESULTS: MRI correctly predicted CRM status in 57 of the 66 tumors and EMI status in 51 of the 58 tumors (eight T1 tumors were excluded from EMI analysis). Univariate analysis showed that T3 stage, lymph node involvement, anterior tumor location, and thin perirectal fat thickness at the anterior portion were related to incorrect prediction of CRM. Anterior tumor location and thin perirectal fat thickness at the anterior portion were related to incorrect prediction of EMI.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chemoradiation can be accurately guided by preoperative MRI staging, but CRM and EMI in anterior rectal tumor should be interpreted with caution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19603224     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-009-0126-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  32 in total

1.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  The mesorectum: morphometric assessment with magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Michael R Torkzad; Lennart Blomqvist
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-01-27       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Extent of mesorectal spread and involvement of lateral resection margin as prognostic factors after surgery for rectal cancer.

Authors:  S J Cawthorn; D V Parums; N M Gibbs; R P A'Hern; S M Caffarey; C I Broughton; C G Marks
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-05-05       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  The effect of circumferential tumor location in clinical outcomes of rectal cancer patients treated with total mesorectal excision.

Authors:  Suk-Hawn Lee; Enrique Hernandez de Anda; Charles O Finne; Robert D Madoff; Julio Garcia-Aguilar
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Extramural depth of tumor invasion at thin-section MR in patients with rectal cancer: results of the MERCURY study.

Authors: 
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-02-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Authors:  P M Sagar; J H Pemberton
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Oncologic outcomes after neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by curative resection with tumor-specific mesorectal excision for fixed locally advanced rectal cancer: Impact of postirradiated pathologic downstaging on local recurrence and survival.

Authors:  Nam Kyu Kim; Seung Hyuk Baik; Jin Sil Seong; Hoguen Kim; Jae Kyung Roh; Kang Young Lee; Seung Kook Sohn; Chang Hwan Cho
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  J K MacFarlane; R D Ryall; R J Heald
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-02-20       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  R J Aitken
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Extent of mesorectal tumor invasion as a prognostic factor after curative surgery for T3 rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Masayoshi Miyoshi; Hideki Ueno; Yojiro Hashiguchi; Hidetaka Mochizuki; Ian C Talbot
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  10 in total

1.  Clinical significance of magnetic resonance imaging findings in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Charles F Bellows; Bernard Jaffe; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Salvatore Pucciarelli; Guiseppe Gagliardi
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2011-04-28

2.  A comparison of the localization of rectal carcinomas according to the general rules of the Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma (JCCRC) and Western guidelines.

Authors:  Akira Tanaka; Sotaro Sadahiro; Toshiyuki Suzuki; Kazutake Okada; Gota Saito
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer: a surgeon's perspective.

Authors:  Avanish P Saklani; Sung Uk Bae; Amy Clayton; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Concordance and survival implications of preoperative subclassification of T3 rectal cancers by depth of mesorectal invasion using a 5-mm cut-off point with endorectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Stephanie García Botello; Rosa Martí Fernández; Coral Cozar Lozano; Salvador Campos Salher; Jose Martín Arévalo; David Moro Valdezate; Vicente Pla Martí; Alejandro Espí Macías
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-04

5.  Stage cT3 low rectal cancer: analysis of prognostic factors.

Authors:  Fan Li; Jin-Hai Chen; Yang Liu; Guo-Xian Guan; Chuan-Hui Lu
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2022-04

6.  Value of endorectal ultrasonography in measuring the extent of mesorectal invasion and substaging of T3 stage rectal cancer.

Authors:  Guangxi Zhong; Yi Xiao; Weixun Zhou; Weidong Pan; Qingli Zhu; Jing Zhang; Yuxin Jiang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  T3 subdivision correlation with nodal or distant metastasis in colorectal cancer; is it practically useful?

Authors:  Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  J Korean Soc Coloproctol       Date:  2012-06-30

8.  Current and future role of three-dimensional modelling technology in rectal cancer surgery: A systematic review.

Authors:  Anna Przedlacka; Gianluca Pellino; Jordan Fletcher; Fernando Bello; Paris P Tekkis; Christos Kontovounisios
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2021-12-27

9.  Prognostic value of mesorectal package area in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Bingjie Guan; Xinmin Huang; Huang Xia; Guoxian Guan; Benhua Xu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 5.738

10.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of the Accuracy of Various Lymph Node Staging Criteria in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Zixuan Zhuang; Yang Zhang; Mingtian Wei; Xuyang Yang; Ziqiang Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 6.244

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.