PURPOSE: To determine the most accurate measurement technique to assess rectal tumor height on MRI using two different anatomic landmarks for the anal verge. INTRODUCTION: Accurate measurements and standardized reporting of MRI for rectal cancer staging is essential. It is not known whether measurements starting from the internal anal sphincter (IAS) or external anal sphincter (EAS) more closely correlate with tumor height from the anal verge on endoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective study included baseline staging MRI examinations for 85 patients after exclusions. Two radiologists blinded to endoscopic results measured the distance of rectal tumors from the internal anal sphincter and external anal sphincter on sagittal T2 images. The reference standard was endoscopic measurement of tumor height; descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: For reader 1, the mean difference in measurement of tumor height between MRI and endoscopy was - 0.45 cm (SD ± 1.76 cm, range - 6.0 to 3.9 cm) for the IAS and 0.51 cm (SD ± 1.75 cm range - 4.7 to 4.8 cm) for the EAS. For reader 2, the mean difference in measurement of tumor height between MRI and endoscopy was - 0.57 (STD ± 1.81, range - 5.9 to 4.8 cm) for the IAS and 0.52 cm (STD ± 1.85, range - 4.3 to 5.6 cm) for the EAS. Interobserver ICC was excellent between reader 1 and reader 2 for measurements from both the IAS (0.955 95% CI 0.931-0.97) and EAS (0.952, 95% CI 0.928, 0.969). CONCLUSION: Measurement of tumor height on MRI was highly reproducible between readers; beginning measurements from the EAS tends to slightly overestimate tumor height on average and from the IAS tends to slightly underestimate tumor height on average.
PURPOSE: To determine the most accurate measurement technique to assess rectal tumor height on MRI using two different anatomic landmarks for the anal verge. INTRODUCTION: Accurate measurements and standardized reporting of MRI for rectal cancer staging is essential. It is not known whether measurements starting from the internal anal sphincter (IAS) or external anal sphincter (EAS) more closely correlate with tumor height from the anal verge on endoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective study included baseline staging MRI examinations for 85 patients after exclusions. Two radiologists blinded to endoscopic results measured the distance of rectal tumors from the internal anal sphincter and external anal sphincter on sagittal T2 images. The reference standard was endoscopic measurement of tumor height; descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: For reader 1, the mean difference in measurement of tumor height between MRI and endoscopy was - 0.45 cm (SD ± 1.76 cm, range - 6.0 to 3.9 cm) for the IAS and 0.51 cm (SD ± 1.75 cm range - 4.7 to 4.8 cm) for the EAS. For reader 2, the mean difference in measurement of tumor height between MRI and endoscopy was - 0.57 (STD ± 1.81, range - 5.9 to 4.8 cm) for the IAS and 0.52 cm (STD ± 1.85, range - 4.3 to 5.6 cm) for the EAS. Interobserver ICC was excellent between reader 1 and reader 2 for measurements from both the IAS (0.955 95% CI 0.931-0.97) and EAS (0.952, 95% CI 0.928, 0.969). CONCLUSION: Measurement of tumor height on MRI was highly reproducible between readers; beginning measurements from the EAS tends to slightly overestimate tumor height on average and from the IAS tends to slightly underestimate tumor height on average.
Authors: Muhammad Amir Saeed Khan; Chin W Ang; Abdul Rahman Hakeem; Nigel Scott; Rick Nigel Saunders; Ian Botterill Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Knut M Augestad; Deborah S Keller; Paul M Bakaki; Johnie Rose; Siran M Koroukian; Tom Øresland; Conor P Delaney Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-04 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Lotte Jacobs; David B Meek; Joost van Heukelom; Thomas L Bollen; Peter D Siersema; Anke B Smits; Ellen Tromp; Maartje Los; Bas Lam Weusten; Niels van Lelyveld Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Seung-Seop Yeom; In Ja Park; Dong-Hoon Yang; Jong Lyul Lee; Yong Sik Yoon; Chan Wook Kim; Seok-Byung Lim; Sung Ho Park; Hwa Jung Kim; Chang Sik Yu; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: U I Attenberger; J Winter; F N Harder; I Burkholder; D Dinter; S Kaltschmidt; P Kienle; S O Schoenberg; R Hofheinz Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 2.260