Ri-Sheng Zhao1, Hui Wang, Zhi-Yang Zhou, Qian Zhou, Michael W Mulholland. 1. 1Department of Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 2Department of Radiology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 3School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 4Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoluminal ultrasound play an important role in the restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy, yet their diagnostic accuracy is still controversial. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the diagnostic performance of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases from 1996 to March 2012 were searched. STUDY SELECTION AND INTERVENTIONS: Either MRI or endoluminal ultrasound was used to restage rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy or radiation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: T category, lymph node, and circumferential resection involvement were measured. RESULTS: The sensitivity estimate for rectal cancer diagnosis (T0) by endoluminal ultrasound (37.0%; 95% CI, 24.0%-52.1%) was higher (p = 0.04) than the sensitivity estimate for MRI (15.3%; 95% CI, 6.5%-32.0%). For T3-4 category, sensitivity estimates of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were comparable, 82.1% and 87.6%, whereas specificity estimates were poor (53.5% and 66.4%). For lymph node involvement, there was no significant difference between the sensitivity estimates for MRI (61.8%) and endoluminal ultrasound (49.8%). Specificity estimates for MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were 72.0% and 78.7%. For circumferential resection margin involvement, MRI sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% and 80.0%. LIMITATIONS: To identify the heterogeneity, metaregression was performed on covariates. However, few of the covariates were identified to be statistically significant because of the lack of adequate original data. CONCLUSION: Accurate restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer by MRI and endoluminal ultrasound is still a challenge. Identifying T0 rectal cancer by imaging is not reliable. Before performing surgery, restaging is important, but some of the T0-2 patients are likely overestimated as T3-4. Both modalities for lymph node involvement are not very good. Magnetic resonance imaging may be a good method to reassess circumferential resection margin.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoluminal ultrasound play an important role in the restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy, yet their diagnostic accuracy is still controversial. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the diagnostic performance of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases from 1996 to March 2012 were searched. STUDY SELECTION AND INTERVENTIONS: Either MRI or endoluminal ultrasound was used to restage rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy or radiation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: T category, lymph node, and circumferential resection involvement were measured. RESULTS: The sensitivity estimate for rectal cancer diagnosis (T0) by endoluminal ultrasound (37.0%; 95% CI, 24.0%-52.1%) was higher (p = 0.04) than the sensitivity estimate for MRI (15.3%; 95% CI, 6.5%-32.0%). For T3-4 category, sensitivity estimates of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were comparable, 82.1% and 87.6%, whereas specificity estimates were poor (53.5% and 66.4%). For lymph node involvement, there was no significant difference between the sensitivity estimates for MRI (61.8%) and endoluminal ultrasound (49.8%). Specificity estimates for MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were 72.0% and 78.7%. For circumferential resection margin involvement, MRI sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% and 80.0%. LIMITATIONS: To identify the heterogeneity, metaregression was performed on covariates. However, few of the covariates were identified to be statistically significant because of the lack of adequate original data. CONCLUSION: Accurate restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer by MRI and endoluminal ultrasound is still a challenge. Identifying T0 rectal cancer by imaging is not reliable. Before performing surgery, restaging is important, but some of the T0-2patients are likely overestimated as T3-4. Both modalities for lymph node involvement are not very good. Magnetic resonance imaging may be a good method to reassess circumferential resection margin.
Authors: T Sprenger; H Rothe; T Beissbarth; L-C Conradi; A Kauffels; K Homayounfar; C L Behnes; C Rödel; T Liersch; M Ghadimi Journal: Chirurg Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: C A Kim; S Ahmed; S Ahmed; B Brunet; H Chalchal; R Deobald; C Doll; M P Dupre; V Gordon; R M Lee-Ying; H Lim; D Liu; J M Loree; J P McGhie; K Mulder; J Park; B Yip; R P Wong; A Zaidi Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Frederik J van der Sluis; Henderik L van Westreenen; Boudewijn van Etten; Barbara L van Leeuwen; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 2.571