Literature DB >> 23049209

Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging measurement of extramural tumor spread in rectal cancer.

Søren R Rafaelsen1, Chris Vagn-Hansen, Torben Sørensen, John Pløen, Anders Jakobsen.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the agreement between transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in classification of ≥ T3 rectal tumors.
METHODS: From January 2010 to January 2012, 86 consecutive patients with ≥ T3 tumors were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 66.4 years (range: 26-91 years). The tumors were all ≥ T3 on TRUS. The sub-classification was defined by the penetration of the rectal wall: a: 0 to 1 mm; b: 1-5 mm; c: 6-15; d: > 15 mm. Early tumors as ab (≤ 5 mm) and advanced tumors as cd (> 5 mm). All patients underwent TRUS using a 6.5 MHz transrectal transducer. The MRI was performed with a 1.5 T Philips unit. The TRUS findings were blinded to the radiologist performing the interpretation of the MRI images and measuring the depth of extramural tumor spread.
RESULTS: TRUS found 51 patients to have an early ≥ T3 tumors and 35 to have an advanced tumor, whereas MRI categorized 48 as early ≥ T3 tumors and 38 as advanced tumors. No patients with tumors classified as advanced by TRUS were found to be early on MRI. The kappa value in classifying early versus advanced T3 rectal tumors was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00). We found a kappa value of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.86) for the total sub-classification between the two methods. The mean maximal tumor outgrowth measured by TRUS, 5.5 mm ± 5.63 mm and on MRI, 6.3 mm ± 6.18 mm, P = 0.004. In 19 of the 86 patients the following CT scan or surgery revealed distant metastases; of the 51 patients in the ultrasound ab group three (5.9%) had metastases, whereas 16 (45.7%) of 35 in the cd group harbored distant metastases, P = 0.00002. The odds ratio of having distant metastases in the ultrasound cd group compared to the ab group was 13.5 (95% CI: 3.5-51.6), P = 0.00002. The mean maximal ultrasound measured outgrowth was 4.3 mm (95% CI: 3.2-5.5 mm) in patients without distant metastases, while the mean maximal outgrowth was 9.5 mm (95% CI: 6.2-12.8 mm) in the patients with metastases, P = 0.00004. Using the MRI classification three (6.3%) of 48 in the MRI ab group had distant metastases, while 16 (42.1%) of the 38 in the MRI cd group, P = 0.00004. The MRI odds ratio was 10.9 (95% CI: 2.9-41.4), P = 0.00008. The mean maximal MRI measured outgrowth was 4.9 mm (95% CI: 3.7-6.1 mm) in patients without distant metastases, while the mean maximal outgrowth was 11.5 mm (95% CI: 7.8-15.2 mm) in the patients with metastases, P = 0.000006.
CONCLUSION: There is good agreement between TRUS and MRI in the pretreatment sub-classification of ≥ T3 tumors. Distant metastases are more frequent in the advanced group.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance imaging; Metastases; Rectal cancer; Tumor staging; Ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23049209      PMCID: PMC3460327          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i36.5021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  35 in total

1.  Preoperative staging of rectal cancer using a 7.5 MHz front-loading US probe.

Authors:  K Akahoshi; A Kondoh; T Nagaie; N Koyanagi; K Nakanishi; N Harada; H Nawata
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging--a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shandra Bipat; Afina S Glas; Frederik J M Slors; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-07-23       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Dose-effect relationship in chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomized trial comparing two radiation doses.

Authors:  Anders Jakobsen; John Ploen; Té Vuong; Ane Appelt; Jan Lindebjerg; Soren R Rafaelsen
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Comparison of two techniques of transrectal ultrasonography for the assessment of local extent of polypoid tumours of the rectum.

Authors:  S R Rafaelsen; O Kronborg; C Fenger; H Drue
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

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

6.  Digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in staging of rectal cancer. A prospective, blind study.

Authors:  S R Rafaelsen; O Kronborg; C Fenger
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 1.990

7.  Clinical implications of quantification of mesorectal tumor invasion by endoscopic ultrasound: All T3 rectal cancers are not equal.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; K Shiva Kumar; Jonathan E Clain; Michael J Levy; Heidi Nelson
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.029

8.  Comparison of transrectal sonography and double-contrast MR imaging when staging rectal cancer.

Authors:  Michael H Fuchsjäger; Andrea G Maier; Wolfgang Schima; Eva Zebedin; Friedrich Herbst; Martina Mittlböck; Friedrich Wrba; Gerhard L Lechner
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Rectal endosonography in the evaluation of stenotic rectal tumors.

Authors:  M B Nielsen; J F Pedersen; J Christiansen
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Preoperative staging of rectal cancer by intrarectal ultrasound.

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

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Beyond Histologic Staging: Emerging Imaging Strategies in Colorectal Cancer with Special Focus on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Tyler J Fraum; Joseph W Owen; Kathryn J Fowler
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2016-09

2.  Paradigm shift in the management of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Nihit Rawat; Martyn D Evans
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2014-05-18       Impact factor: 0.656

3.  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

4.  Forward-viewing radial-array echoendoscope for staging of colon cancer beyond the rectum.

Authors:  Pradermchai Kongkam; Sittikorn Linlawan; Satimai Aniwan; Narisorn Lakananurak; Suparat Khemnark; Chucheep Sahakitrungruang; Jirawat Pattanaarun; Supakij Khomvilai; Naruemon Wisedopas; Wiriyaporn Ridtitid; Manoop S Bhutani; Pinit Kullavanijaya; Rungsun Rerknimitr
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Palliative care and end-stage colorectal cancer management: the surgeon meets the oncologist.

Authors:  Renato Costi; Francesco Leonardi; Daniele Zanoni; Vincenzo Violi; Luigi Roncoroni
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Endoscopic ultrasound for staging of colonic cancer proximal to the rectum: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marie Louise Malmstrøm; Adrian Săftoiu; Peter Vilmann; Tobias Wirenfeldt Klausen; Ismail Gögenur
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.628

7.  The accuracy of endorectal ultrasonography in rectal cancer staging.

Authors:  Adrian Cote; Florin Graur; Andrei Lebovici; Emil Mois; Nadim Al Hajjar; Codruta Mare; Radu Badea; Cornel Iancu
Journal:  Clujul Med       Date:  2015-07-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.