Literature DB >> 19907959

Colonoscopic ultrasound is associated with a learning phenomenon despite previous rigid probe experience.

Pulathis N Siriwardana1, Shivanthi J De S Hewavisenthi, Arunasalam Pathmeswaran, Kemal I Deen.   

Abstract

Colonoscopic ultrasound (CUS) enables total colonoscopic examination combined with staging of tumor. Rigid probe transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is reliable in assessing rectal cancer. Both the modalities are associated with an initial learning curve. We evaluated the predictability CUS in preoperative staging of rectal cancer during the learning curve, despite experience with TRUS. Forty-four patients with non-obstructing rectal cancer were assessed by colonoscopy and colonic ultrasound using a 7.5 MHz rotating transducer. Accuracy of ultrasound staging was compared with pathological staging. Tumor staging and nodal staging at pathology and ultrasound were named pT, pN and uT, uN, respectively. The pathological staging was pT1 in two (4.5%), pT2 in 16 (36%), pT3 in 21 (48%) and pT4 in five (11.5%) rectal cancer specimens. CUS understaged the tumor in 11 cases and overstaged it in 10 cases. Overall, the positive predictive value was 61%, negative predictive value 73%, sensitivity 61%, and specificity 73%. Lymph nodes were not visualized in 14. The overall un-weighted kappa of CUS staging of RC was 0.18 (poor). The predictive value in tumor staging of CUS is suboptimal in the learning phase, despite previous experience with TRUS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19907959     DOI: 10.1007/s12664-009-0035-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0254-8860


  9 in total

1.  Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Staging of rectosigmoid neoplasia with colonoscopic endoluminal ultrasonography.

Authors:  S A Norton; M G Thomas
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Assessment of the accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography in anorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  S G Mackay; C K Pager; D Joseph; P J Stewart; M J Solomon
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 5.  Preoperative staging of rectal cancer.

Authors:  H Kwok; I P Bissett; G L Hill
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  Surgeon-performed ultrasound: endorectal ultrasound.

Authors:  David M Schaffzin; W Douglas Wong
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.741

7.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery--initial experience from three centres in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  R J Steele; M J Hershman; N J Mortensen; N C Armitage; J H Scholefield
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Preoperative staging of rectal cancer by intrarectal ultrasound.

Authors:  U Hildebrandt; G Feifel
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer.

Authors:  S Fujita; S Yamamoto; T Akasu; Y Moriya
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 6.939

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.