Diagnostic value of multidetector row CT in rectal cancer staging: a comparison of multiplanar and axial images with histopathology

Sinha, Rakesh; Verma, Raman; Arora, Rajesh; Richards, C. J.

doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2006.12.013

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if CT cannot differentiate rectal wall layers, rectal tumors can be identified using iodine-containing contrast medium, involving the perirectal fat tissue and adjacent organs (in more advanced stages). To assess T3-T4 tumor stages, CT with MPR showed good accuracy (87.1%) [13] (fig12, fig 13). CT scan is inferior to TRUS and MRI with endorectal coil when identifying peritumoral lymph node metastasis [26].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CT scan cannot distinguish between the layers of the rectal wall [13]. However, multidetector CT (MDCT) with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) has a good accuracy for the assessment of locoregionally advanced tumors (T3, T4) (87.1% for tumor assessment and 84.8% for lymph node assessment) [13].…”

Section: Cross-sectional Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CT with intravenous administration of iodine based contrast medium shows limited soft tissue contrast for local staging of early tumors [2,5]. CT scan cannot distinguish between the layers of the rectal wall [13]. However, multidetector CT (MDCT) with multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) has a good accuracy for the assessment of locoregionally advanced tumors (T3, T4) (87.1% for tumor assessment and 84.8% for lymph node assessment) [13].…”

Section: Cross-sectional Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Characterization and staging of rectal tumors: endoscopic ultrasound versus MRI / CT. Pictorial essay.

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endoscopic ultrasound is recommended for rectal cancer staging. Transrectal ultrasound approach is able to overcome one of the limitations of this technique regarding circumferential rectal stenosis. Prior intrarectal administration of a small amount of fluid contrast agent optimizes the method, making it easier to distinguish the layers of the rectal wall and tumor formation. Endoscopic ultrasound focuses on the gray-scale mode. Additional procedures provide useful information for tumor assessment: Doppler ultrasound helps identify chaotic intratumoral vascularization; 3D ultrasound allows the assessment and accurate measurement of the tumor; elastography can identify focal tumor dysplasia within adenomas; contrast-enhanced ultrasound allows characterization of tumor microvasculature. Even if they are not as accurate in distinguishing rectal wall layers, cross-sectional imaging techniques (CT, MRI) can identify the anatomical relationships of advanced locoregional cancers, as well as possible distant metastasis. This paper aims at illustrating the main pathological aspects of endoscopic ultrasound multimodal examination useful for cancer staging.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cross-sectional Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cross-sectional Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Characterization and staging of rectal tumors: endoscopic ultrasound versus MRI / CT. Pictorial essay.

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[57Á59] New multidetector CT (MDCT) scanners with 16 detectors enable multiplanar reconstruction in any direction without loss of resolution. Addition of such images to standard axial images significantly improves the accuracy of T-staging [60]. Vliegen et al [61] evaluated the accuracy of MDCT for the assessment of tumour invasion into the mesorectal fascia in 35 patients, with MRI as the reference standard.…”

Section: Mri and Ctmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative staging and treatment options in T1 rectal adenocarcinoma

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, there are few studies on the role of CT in assessing mesorectal fascial involvement with advanced rectal cancer (7) We have experienced that there is difficulty in measuring the shortest distance between the tumor/or metastatic lymph node and mesorectal fascia using multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT), as there is a limitation of the low spartial resolution and a problem of differentiation between a benign reactive lymph node and a metastatic lymph node. According to one study, the mesorectal fascia is better seen with MDCT than with MR, particularly in patients with gross obesity (4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative Assessment of Mesorectal Fascial Involvement in Patients with Rectal Cancer: The Diagnostic Value of MDCT for Measuring the Mesorectal Fascial Thickness

Seo

Yoon

Lee

et al. 2007

J Korean Radiol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess the diagnostic value of the use of multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) in evaluating mesorectal fascial (MRF) involvement in patients with T3 stage rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: From September 2005 to June 2006, we enrolled 21 patients with T3 stage rectal cancer. In addition, 21 healthy patients were enrolled in a control group. Two radiologists measured the mean MRF thickness independently. We considered positive MRF involvement when the MRF thickness exceeded 4 mm, and then we measured the MRF thickness of patients with T3 rectal cancer. We analyzed interobserver agreement for the measured MRF thickness of the control group and assessed the diagnostic value of 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm as references in predicting MRF involvement. Results:The mean MRF thickness of the control group was 3.24 0.50 mm (radiologist 1) and 3.04 0.51 mm (radiologist 2). Using 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm as a reference thickness in predicting MRF involvement, sensitivity was 100%, 100% and 28.57%, specificity was 71.43%, 85.71% and 92.86%, the false negative rate (FNR) was 0%, 0% and 71.43%, the false positive rate (FPR) was 28.57%, 14.29% and 7.14%, the negative predictive value (NPV) was 100%, 100% and 72.2%, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 63.64%, 77.78% and 66.7%, and the accuracy was 80.95%, 90.48% and 71.43%. Conclusion: Preoperative assessment of the MRF thickness on MDCT is beneficial in predicting MRF involvement in patients with advanced rectal cancer and a value of 5 mm as a reference MRF thickness was established.

show abstract

Diagnostic value of multidetector row CT in rectal cancer staging: a comparison of multiplanar and axial images with histopathology

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Characterization and staging of rectal tumors: endoscopic ultrasound versus MRI / CT. Pictorial essay.

Characterization and staging of rectal tumors: endoscopic ultrasound versus MRI / CT. Pictorial essay.

Preoperative staging and treatment options in T1 rectal adenocarcinoma

Preoperative Assessment of Mesorectal Fascial Involvement in Patients with Rectal Cancer: The Diagnostic Value of MDCT for Measuring the Mesorectal Fascial Thickness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About