INTRODUCTION: Preoperative staging is essential for the optimal treatment and surgical planning of colorectal cancers. This study was aimed to evaluate the accuracy of colorectal cancer staging done using contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomographic colonography (CEMDCTC). METHODS: We recruited 25 patients with 28 proven colorectal cancers. A 16-slice multidetector computed tomography scanner was used to generate two-dimensional multiplanar reformatted sagittal, coronal and oblique coronal images, and three-dimensional virtual colonography (endoluminal) images. Axial and reformatted views were analysed, and TNM staging was done. Patients underwent surgery and conventional colonoscopy, and surgical histopathological correlation was obtained. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies for TNM colorectal cancer staging were 92.3% for T staging, 42.3% for N staging and 96.1% for M staging using CEMDCTC. There was excellent positive correlation for T staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.686) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.838) (p < 0.0001), and moderate positive correlation for N staging between CEMDCTC and surgery (κ-value = 0.424; p < 0.0001). The correlation between CEMDCTC and histopathology for N staging was poor (κ-value = 0.186; p < 0.05); the negative predictive value was 100% for lymph node detection. Moderate positive correlation was seen for M staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.462) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.649). No false negatives were identified in any of the M0 cases. CONCLUSION: CEMDCTC correlated well with pathologic T and M stages, but poorly with pathologic N stage. It is an extremely accurate tool for T staging, but cannot reliably distinguish between malignant lymph nodes and enlarged reactive lymph nodes.
INTRODUCTION: Preoperative staging is essential for the optimal treatment and surgical planning of colorectal cancers. This study was aimed to evaluate the accuracy of colorectal cancer staging done using contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomographic colonography (CEMDCTC). METHODS: We recruited 25 patients with 28 proven colorectal cancers. A 16-slice multidetector computed tomography scanner was used to generate two-dimensional multiplanar reformatted sagittal, coronal and oblique coronal images, and three-dimensional virtual colonography (endoluminal) images. Axial and reformatted views were analysed, and TNM staging was done. Patients underwent surgery and conventional colonoscopy, and surgical histopathological correlation was obtained. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies for TNM colorectal cancer staging were 92.3% for T staging, 42.3% for N staging and 96.1% for M staging using CEMDCTC. There was excellent positive correlation for T staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.686) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.838) (p < 0.0001), and moderate positive correlation for N staging between CEMDCTC and surgery (κ-value = 0.424; p < 0.0001). The correlation between CEMDCTC and histopathology for N staging was poor (κ-value = 0.186; p < 0.05); the negative predictive value was 100% for lymph node detection. Moderate positive correlation was seen for M staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.462) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.649). No false negatives were identified in any of the M0 cases. CONCLUSION:CEMDCTC correlated well with pathologic T and M stages, but poorly with pathologic N stage. It is an extremely accurate tool for T staging, but cannot reliably distinguish between malignant lymph nodes and enlarged reactive lymph nodes.
Authors: J Rydberg; K A Buckwalter; K S Caldemeyer; M D Phillips; D J Conces; A M Aisen; S A Persohn; K K Kopecky Journal: Radiographics Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: J G Fletcher; C D Johnson; T J Welch; R L MacCarty; D A Ahlquist; J E Reed; W S Harmsen; L A Wilson Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jacob Sosna; Martina M Morrin; Jonathan B Kruskal; Richard J Farrell; Imad Nasser; Vassilios Raptopoulos Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Vicky Goh; Simon Morley; Paul Bassett; Wendy Atkin; Clive I Bartram Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105