Assessment of rectal tumor infiltration utilizing endorectal MR imaging and comparison with endoscopic rectal sonography

Ronald J. Zagoria, Christopher A. Schlarb, David J. Ott, Robert E. Bechtold, Neil T. Wolfman, Eric S. Scharling, Michael Y M Chen, Brian W. Loggie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The preoperative assessment of depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma is increasingly important as new treatment methodologies are developed. Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MR imaging was therefore compared with that of the endoscopic rectal sonography in determining depth of invasion of rectal carcinomas. Method: From March 1993 to April 1994, 10 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinomas were imaged with both endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography. These two studies were performed an average of 2.7 days apart in each patient. All 10 patients had surgical resection of the rectal carcinoma within days of imaging studies. TNM staging of each malignant lesion was correlated with the imaging reports. Result: Staging accuracy was 80% for endorectal MR imaging and 70% for endoscopic rectal sonography. With MR imaging, one T2 lesion was overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. With sonography, two T2 lesions were overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. One MR error resulted from misinterpretation. All other staging errors occurred in patients with tumor spread into, but not through, the muscularis propria or with microscopic spread through this layer. Conclusions: Endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography have similar accuracy for assessing depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)312-317
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Surgical Oncology
Volume64
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Endosonography
Rectal Neoplasms
Carcinoma
Neoplasm Staging
Ultrasonography
Biopsy
Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Oncology

Cite this

Assessment of rectal tumor infiltration utilizing endorectal MR imaging and comparison with endoscopic rectal sonography. / Zagoria, Ronald J.; Schlarb, Christopher A.; Ott, David J.; Bechtold, Robert E.; Wolfman, Neil T.; Scharling, Eric S.; Chen, Michael Y M; Loggie, Brian W.

In: Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 64, No. 4, 04.1997, p. 312-317.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zagoria, Ronald J. ; Schlarb, Christopher A. ; Ott, David J. ; Bechtold, Robert E. ; Wolfman, Neil T. ; Scharling, Eric S. ; Chen, Michael Y M ; Loggie, Brian W. / Assessment of rectal tumor infiltration utilizing endorectal MR imaging and comparison with endoscopic rectal sonography. In: Journal of Surgical Oncology. 1997 ; Vol. 64, No. 4. pp. 312-317.
@article{a8f00461faca4843ba80ad051e8b6a0c,
title = "Assessment of rectal tumor infiltration utilizing endorectal MR imaging and comparison with endoscopic rectal sonography",
abstract = "Background: The preoperative assessment of depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma is increasingly important as new treatment methodologies are developed. Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MR imaging was therefore compared with that of the endoscopic rectal sonography in determining depth of invasion of rectal carcinomas. Method: From March 1993 to April 1994, 10 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinomas were imaged with both endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography. These two studies were performed an average of 2.7 days apart in each patient. All 10 patients had surgical resection of the rectal carcinoma within days of imaging studies. TNM staging of each malignant lesion was correlated with the imaging reports. Result: Staging accuracy was 80{\%} for endorectal MR imaging and 70{\%} for endoscopic rectal sonography. With MR imaging, one T2 lesion was overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. With sonography, two T2 lesions were overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. One MR error resulted from misinterpretation. All other staging errors occurred in patients with tumor spread into, but not through, the muscularis propria or with microscopic spread through this layer. Conclusions: Endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography have similar accuracy for assessing depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma.",
author = "Zagoria, {Ronald J.} and Schlarb, {Christopher A.} and Ott, {David J.} and Bechtold, {Robert E.} and Wolfman, {Neil T.} and Scharling, {Eric S.} and Chen, {Michael Y M} and Loggie, {Brian W.}",
year = "1997",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199704)64:4<312::AID-JSO12>3.0.CO;2-4",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "312--317",
journal = "Journal of Surgical Oncology",
issn = "0022-4790",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of rectal tumor infiltration utilizing endorectal MR imaging and comparison with endoscopic rectal sonography

AU - Zagoria, Ronald J.

AU - Schlarb, Christopher A.

AU - Ott, David J.

AU - Bechtold, Robert E.

AU - Wolfman, Neil T.

AU - Scharling, Eric S.

AU - Chen, Michael Y M

AU - Loggie, Brian W.

PY - 1997/4

Y1 - 1997/4

N2 - Background: The preoperative assessment of depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma is increasingly important as new treatment methodologies are developed. Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MR imaging was therefore compared with that of the endoscopic rectal sonography in determining depth of invasion of rectal carcinomas. Method: From March 1993 to April 1994, 10 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinomas were imaged with both endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography. These two studies were performed an average of 2.7 days apart in each patient. All 10 patients had surgical resection of the rectal carcinoma within days of imaging studies. TNM staging of each malignant lesion was correlated with the imaging reports. Result: Staging accuracy was 80% for endorectal MR imaging and 70% for endoscopic rectal sonography. With MR imaging, one T2 lesion was overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. With sonography, two T2 lesions were overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. One MR error resulted from misinterpretation. All other staging errors occurred in patients with tumor spread into, but not through, the muscularis propria or with microscopic spread through this layer. Conclusions: Endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography have similar accuracy for assessing depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma.

AB - Background: The preoperative assessment of depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma is increasingly important as new treatment methodologies are developed. Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MR imaging was therefore compared with that of the endoscopic rectal sonography in determining depth of invasion of rectal carcinomas. Method: From March 1993 to April 1994, 10 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven rectal carcinomas were imaged with both endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography. These two studies were performed an average of 2.7 days apart in each patient. All 10 patients had surgical resection of the rectal carcinoma within days of imaging studies. TNM staging of each malignant lesion was correlated with the imaging reports. Result: Staging accuracy was 80% for endorectal MR imaging and 70% for endoscopic rectal sonography. With MR imaging, one T2 lesion was overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. With sonography, two T2 lesions were overstaged and one T3 lesion was understaged. One MR error resulted from misinterpretation. All other staging errors occurred in patients with tumor spread into, but not through, the muscularis propria or with microscopic spread through this layer. Conclusions: Endorectal MR imaging and endoscopic rectal sonography have similar accuracy for assessing depth of invasion of rectal carcinoma.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030942757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030942757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199704)64:4<312::AID-JSO12>3.0.CO;2-4

DO - 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199704)64:4<312::AID-JSO12>3.0.CO;2-4

M3 - Article

VL - 64

SP - 312

EP - 317

JO - Journal of Surgical Oncology

JF - Journal of Surgical Oncology

SN - 0022-4790

IS - 4

ER -