Literature DB >> 21904140

Can a novel MRI staging system for low rectal cancer aid surgical planning?

Oliver C Shihab1, Peter How, Nicolas West, Chris George, Uday Patel, Philip Quirke, Richard J Heald, Brendan J Moran, Gina Brown.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancers are associated with worse outcomes in comparison with mid and upper rectal tumors.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the predictive accuracy of MRI in identifying the correct surgical approach based on the mesorectal and extralevator planes.
DESIGN: This study involved the retrospective analysis of MRI and histopathology data of 33 patients with low rectal cancer, with the use of an anatomically based staging system. Three radiologists reported on the available surgical planes of excision based on the predicted relationship of tumor to key anatomical features. MRI-predicted planes of excision were then compared with the histopathological planes actually required, with the use of the same staging criteria. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at 4 English district general hospitals. PATIENTS: Unselected patients with low rectal cancer, all of whom were participants in a multicenter study, were eligible for this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : The main outcome measured was the accuracy of operative plane prediction on MRI.
RESULTS: : On pathological analysis, the mesorectal plane would have been sufficient to achieve a clear margin in 28 of 33 (84.9%) of cases. The extralevator plane was required in 5 of 33 (15.1%). Planes were correctly predicted by MRI in 29 of 33 cases by radiologist 1 and 24 of 33 cases by radiologists 2 and 3 with an accuracy of 87.9% and 72.7%. Overstaging (extralevator plane predicted when a mesorectal plane would have sufficed) occurred in 3 of 33 and 7 of 33 cases. Understaging (mesorectal plane predicted when an extralevator plane was required) occurred in 1 of 33 and 2 of 33 cases. The positive and negative predictive values of MRI in determining the histopathological plane of excision required were 57% and 96% for radiologist 1 and 30% and 91% for radiologists 2 and 3. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature and its relatively small patient numbers. No account was taken of postoperative function when recommending the surgical plane.
CONCLUSIONS: This supports an anatomically based MRI staging system for low rectal cancer to predict the planes of surgical excision. This may help to reduce margin positivity and to improve outcome in patients with low rectal cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21904140     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31822abd78

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  [The role of cross-sectional imaging in staging of rectal cancer].

Authors:  A O Schäfer; M Langer; T Baumann
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  MRI Local Staging and Restaging in Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Gregory dePrisco
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2015-09

3.  The Estimate of the Impact of Coccyx Resection in Surgical Field Exposure During Abdominal Perineal Resection Using Preoperative High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance.

Authors:  Guilherme Pagin São Julião; Cinthia D Ortega; Bruna Borba Vailati; Francisco A B Coutinho; Gustavo Rossi; Angelita Habr-Gama; Laura Melina Fernandez; Sérgio Eduardo Alonso Araújo; Gina Brown; Rodrigo Oliva Perez
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Histopathological and radiological reporting in rectal cancer: concepts and controversies, facts and fantasies.

Authors:  S Balyasnikova; N Haboubi; B Moran; G Brown
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Magnetic resonance imaging based rectal cancer classification: landmarks and technical standardization.

Authors:  Sami Alasari; Daero Lim; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Current controversy, confusion, and imprecision in the use and interpretation of rectal MRI.

Authors:  Marc J Gollub; Chandana Lall; Neeraj Lalwani; Michael H Rosenthal
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2019-11

Review 8.  The importance of MRI for rectal cancer evaluation.

Authors:  Maria Clara Fernandes; Marc J Gollub; Gina Brown
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 2.388

9.  Preliminary Outcome of Individualized Abdominoperineal Excision for Locally Advanced Low Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Yi Zheng; Jia-Gang Han; Zhen-Jun Wang; Zhi-Gang Gao; Guang-Hui Wei; Zhi-Wei Zhai; Bao-Cheng Zhao
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 2.628

Review 10.  Imaging Advances in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Svetlana Balyasnikova; Gina Brown
Journal:  Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep       Date:  2016-04-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.