The value of endosonographic rectal carcinoma staging in routine diagnostics: a 10-year analysis

Kauer, W. K. H.; Prantl, Lukas; Dittler, H. J.; Siewert, J. R.

doi:10.1007/s00464-003-9088-7

Cited by 61 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The inability of ERUS to distinguish between fat infiltration or peritumoral inflammation results in somewhat lower staging accuracy with regard to T4 cancers. In conclusion, the overall agreement between uT-stage and pTstage in the larger studies is 63% to 69%, with 12% to 15% understaging and 18% to 24% overstaging (44,47,68,69). In these series there was understaging of uT1 between 6% to 24%, and of uT2 tumor from 16% to 30%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer: Role of Endorectal Ultrasound

A.G.F.¹,

Grobler²,

Santoro³

2011

Rectal Cancer - A Multidisciplinary Approach to Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer: Role of Endorectal Ultrasound

A.G.F.¹,

Grobler²,

Santoro³

2011

Rectal Cancer - A Multidisciplinary Approach to Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The overall agreement between uT and pT in the larger studies is 63-69%, with 12-15% understaging and 18-24% overstaging [16,17,18,19,20]. Garcia-Aguilar et al published the largest single institution study until now.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Limits of Endorectal Ultrasound in Tailoring Treatment of Patients with Rectal Cancer

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) is considered reliable in staging rectal cancer, but recently some critics have questioned its accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate how often an ERUS-based decision leads to an appropriate treatment. Methods: Two hundred and twenty patients with rectal cancer staged with ERUS who underwent a surgical resection or a local excision without neoadjuvant therapy from 1997 to 2012 were included. According to ERUS, patients were divided into three groups of indication: (a) local excision (Tis-1 N0), (b) direct surgery (T2 N0), (c) preoperative chemoradiation (T3-4 or N+). Accuracy was explored by the correlation established with the final pathology. Results: Accuracy for T and N staging was 65 and 64%, respectively. Indication to local excision and to chemoradiation was correct in 97 and 88% of patients staged by ERUS. Accuracy of indication to direct surgery was poor (37%), and 21% of patients were overtreated in this group. Conclusions: ERUS seems not able to fulfill all the needs of ideal tailored therapeutic strategies. T2 diagnosis needs to be confirmed by an excisional biopsy before a final decision is made because overstaging of early tumors may occur in a not-so-negligible proportion of patients.

show abstract

“…Moreover, efficacy increases when three-dimensional (3D) EUS software is used (5). The accuracy of EUS in assessing depth of invasion into the rectal wall has been found to vary with tumor stage, with higher accuracy in early (T1) and advanced (T3-T4) lesions than in T2 lesions (16,17).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%