Literature DB >> 8565885

Endoscopic ultrasound and endorectal magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective, comparative study for preoperative staging and follow-up of rectal cancer.

C Meyenberger1, R A Huch Böni, P Bertschinger, G F Zala, H P Klotz, G P Krestin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound has become the best available method for local staging of primary rectal cancer and diagnosing recurrent local disease. The aim of this study is to compare the value of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal coil (EMRI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients (11 women, 10 men, mean age 63 years, range 31-79) with primary rectal cancer (n = 6) or follow-up examinations for recurrent local disease (n = 15) were investigated by EUS using an echo colonoscope (CF-UM 20, Olympus Optical) and by endorectal coil MRI on a 1.5 tesla MR system (General Electric). T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images were obtained. The results of preoperative examinations were compared to histopathological findings regarding the T staging, with special focus on the transmural tumor infiltration.
RESULTS: EUS identified all tumors, whereas one tumor was missed by EMRI. EUS was superior to EMRI in T staging (accuracy 83%/40%), due to the better differentiation between T1 and T2 tumors, as the endorectal coil could not differentiate between stage T1 and stage T2. The accuracy of EMRI in assessing perirectal infiltration was 80%, compared to EUS with 100%. Local tumor recurrence was found in six of 15 patients, without endoscopic signs of recurrent disease in four of them. All were detected by EUS. Only one recurrence was missed by EMRI. Accuracy and positive and negative predictive values in follow-up examinations for recurrent disease for EUS were 93%, 86%, and 100%, and for both the T2-weighted and T1-weighted contrast-enhanced sequences of endorectal coil MRI, they were 93%, 100%, and 90%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound and endorectal coil MRI are comparable methods in the preoperative staging and early diagnosis of recurrent rectal cancer. The advantages of EUS are the small diameter of the instrument, availability, and lower costs. In contrast, EMRI is operator-independent, and may become important for combined local and distant staging and follow-up examination in rectal cancer, if contrast-enhanced imaging can improve the sensitivity for liver metastases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8565885     DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1005751

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  18 in total

1.  [Endosonography of the gastrointestinal tract].

Authors:  M Moehler; P R Galle; R Kiesslich
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  [1997 gastroenterology update--II].

Authors:  W Fischbach; V Gross; J Schölmerich; C Ell; P Layer; W E Fleig
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1998-03-15

3.  Does a learning curve exist in endorectal two-dimensional ultrasound accuracy?

Authors:  O J Morris; B Draganic; S Smith
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2011-07-09       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  Comparative study of three-dimensional and conventional endorectal ultrasonography used in rectal cancer staging.

Authors:  J C Kim; Y K Cho; S Y Kim; S K Park; M G Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-05-07       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Endorectal ultrasound-directed biopsy: a useful technique to detect local recurrence of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Morken; Nancy N Baxter; Robert D Madoff; Charles O Finne
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2005-06-08       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Gadolinium-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil for local staging of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Mitsuharu Tamakawa; Yuriko Kawaai; Ryuji Shirase; Taishi Satoh; Hidenari Akiba; Hideki Hyodoh; Masato Hareyama; Tomohisa Furuhata; Koichi Hirata; Tadashi Hasegawa
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2010-05-29       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 7.  Can endoscopic ultrasound predict early rectal cancers that can be resected endoscopically? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Srinivas R Puli; Matthew L Bechtold; Jyotsna B K Reddy; Abhishek Choudhary; Mainor R Antillon
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  In vivo characterization of pancreatic and lymph node tissue by using EUS spectrum analysis: a validation study.

Authors:  Ronald E Kumon; Michael J Pollack; Ashley L Faulx; Kayode Olowe; Farees T Farooq; Victor K Chen; Yun Zhou; Richard C K Wong; Gerard A Isenberg; Michael V Sivak; Amitabh Chak; Cheri X Deng
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Staging anal cancer: prospective comparison of transanal endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  S D Otto; L Lee; H J Buhr; B Frericks; S Höcht; A J Kroesen
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 10.  Primary tumour staging of gastric and colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J N Bruneton; E Francois; B Padovani; C Raffaelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.