Jörn Gröne1,2, Florian N Loch3, Matthias Taupitz4, C Schmidt4, Martin E Kreis1. 1. Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité University Medicine, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Surgery, Rotes Kreuz Krankenhaus, Bremen, Germany. 3. Department of Surgery, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité University Medicine, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Germany. florian.loch@charite.de. 4. Department of Radiology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The accuracy of pretherapeutic staging of lymph nodes (LN) in rectal cancer by MR imaging (MRI) is still limited. The aim of the study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of different morphological criteria in nodal staging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: LN were analyzed by MRI in 60 patients with rectal cancer and primary surgery. Signs of LN metastasis (cN+) were spiculated/indistinct border contour, inhomogeneous signal intensity, or LN size. The accuracy of these signs for clinical LN staging was analyzed with conclusive postoperative histological lymph node examination. RESULTS: 68.3% of patients with nodal metastasis (pN+) were correctly identified by size with a cutoff value of 7.2 mm. This, however, was not inferior to the 76.7% identified using the inhomogeneous morphological signal intensity and spiculated/indistinct border contour criteria (p = 0.096). 3.3 versus 5% were overstaged, and 28.3 versus 18.3% understaged by these criteria. Sensitivities/specificities for (a) size, (b) spiculated/indistinct border contour, and (c) inhomogeneous signal intensity and spiculated/indistinct border contour were (a) 32%/94%, (b) 56%/86%, and (c) 56%/91%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of LN staging in rectal cancer was not improved by morphological criteria. These limitations suggest being reticent when recommending neoadjuvant chemoradiation merely based on preoperative positive LN staging.
INTRODUCTION: The accuracy of pretherapeutic staging of lymph nodes (LN) in rectal cancer by MR imaging (MRI) is still limited. The aim of the study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of different morphological criteria in nodal staging. MATERIAL AND METHODS: LN were analyzed by MRI in 60 patients with rectal cancer and primary surgery. Signs of LN metastasis (cN+) were spiculated/indistinct border contour, inhomogeneous signal intensity, or LN size. The accuracy of these signs for clinical LN staging was analyzed with conclusive postoperative histological lymph node examination. RESULTS: 68.3% of patients with nodal metastasis (pN+) were correctly identified by size with a cutoff value of 7.2 mm. This, however, was not inferior to the 76.7% identified using the inhomogeneous morphological signal intensity and spiculated/indistinct border contour criteria (p = 0.096). 3.3 versus 5% were overstaged, and 28.3 versus 18.3% understaged by these criteria. Sensitivities/specificities for (a) size, (b) spiculated/indistinct border contour, and (c) inhomogeneous signal intensity and spiculated/indistinct border contour were (a) 32%/94%, (b) 56%/86%, and (c) 56%/91%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of LN staging in rectal cancer was not improved by morphological criteria. These limitations suggest being reticent when recommending neoadjuvant chemoradiation merely based on preoperative positive LN staging.
Authors: C Pox; S Aretz; S C Bischoff; U Graeven; M Hass; P Heußner; W Hohenberger; A Holstege; J Hübner; F Kolligs; M Kreis; P Lux; J Ockenga; R Porschen; S Post; N Rahner; A Reinacher-Schick; J F Riemann; R Sauer; A Sieg; W Scheppach; W Schmitt; H J Schmoll; K Schulmann; A Tannapfel; W Schmiegel Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Corrie A M Marijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Hein Putter; Mandy van den Brink; Cornelis P Maas; Hendrik Martijn; Harm J Rutten; Theo Wiggers; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Jan-Willem H Leer; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Gina Brown; Alex Kirkham; Geraint T Williams; Michael Bourne; Andrew G Radcliffe; Joanne Sayman; Richard Newell; Chummy Sinnatamby; Richard J Heald Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Max J Lahaye; Sanne M E Engelen; Alfons G H Kessels; Adriaan P de Bruïne; Maarten F von Meyenfeldt; Jos M A van Engelshoven; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Niels W Schurink; Lisa A Min; Maaike Berbee; Wouter van Elmpt; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Frans C H Bakers; Sander Roberti; Simon R van Kranen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Onofrio A Catalano; Susanna I Lee; Chiara Parente; Christy Cauley; Felipe S Furtado; Robin Striar; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Yan Li; Lale Umutlu; Lina Garcia Cañamaque; David Groshar; Umar Mahmood; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; David P Ryan; Jeffrey W Clark; Jennifer Wo; Theodore S Hong; Hiroko Kunitake; Liliana Bordeianou; David Berger; Rocco Ricciardi; Bruce Rosen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexander Herold; Christian Wassipaul; Michael Weber; Florian Lindenlaub; Sazan Rasul; Anton Stift; Judith Stift; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Marcus Hacker; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Alexander R Haug; Dietmar Tamandl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marco Armbruster; Melvin D'Anastasi; Veronika Holzner; Martin E Kreis; Olaf Dietrich; Bernhard Brandlhuber; Anno Graser; Martina Brandlhuber Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 2.571