Matteo Revelli1, Francesco Paparo2, Lorenzo Bacigalupo2, Cristina Puppo2, Manuele Furnari3, Cristina Conforti2, Gian Andrea Binda4, Edoardo Savarino5, Davide Risso6, Gian Andrea Rollandi2. 1. Department of Radiology, "San Bartolomeo" Hospital, ASL5, Sarzana, La Spezia, Italy. 2. Department of Radiology, E. O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy. 3. Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy. 4. Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Department of Abdominal Surgery, E. O. Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy. 5. Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 6. Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of intraperitoneal/extraperitoneal location of rectal cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We assessed the identification of the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR) and the distance from the inferior edge of tumors to the anal verge and from the APR to the anal verge. RESULTS: Distances obtained with CT and MRI showed a strong correlation [Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation (rho): 0.995; P<.0001]. Magnetic resonance showed sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 89.62-100.00%), specificity of 75% (95% CI: 20.34-95.88%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.14% (95% CI: 85.03-99.52%), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% CI: 30.48-100.00%). CT showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 89.32-100.00%), specificity of 60% (95% CI: 15.40-93.51%), PPV of 94.29% (95% CI: 80.81-99.13%), and NPV of 100% (95% CI: 30.48-100.00%). CONCLUSIONS: CT demonstrated a potential supporting role in the evaluation of rectal cancer, showing a strong correlation with MRI.
OBJECTIVES: To compare computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of intraperitoneal/extraperitoneal location of rectal cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We assessed the identification of the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR) and the distance from the inferior edge of tumors to the anal verge and from the APR to the anal verge. RESULTS: Distances obtained with CT and MRI showed a strong correlation [Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation (rho): 0.995; P<.0001]. Magnetic resonance showed sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 89.62-100.00%), specificity of 75% (95% CI: 20.34-95.88%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.14% (95% CI: 85.03-99.52%), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (95% CI: 30.48-100.00%). CT showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 89.32-100.00%), specificity of 60% (95% CI: 15.40-93.51%), PPV of 94.29% (95% CI: 80.81-99.13%), and NPV of 100% (95% CI: 30.48-100.00%). CONCLUSIONS: CT demonstrated a potential supporting role in the evaluation of rectal cancer, showing a strong correlation with MRI.