American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 160, 525-531, Copyright © 1993 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

The role of MR imaging in determining surgical eligibility for pelvic exenteration

MJ Popovich, H Hricak, K Sugimura and JL Stern
Redwood Radiology, Santa Rosa, CA 95405.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of MR imaging in the preoperative assessment of candidates for pelvic exenteration. Specifically, we sought to determine if MR imaging was reliable in selecting patients with pelvic cancer for surgical exenteration. MATERIALS AND METHODS. MR images of the pelvis were retrospectively evaluated in 23 patients with proved pelvic cancer. These images were analyzed for (1) presence and location of the primary or recurrent tumor; (2) tumor extension to the bladder, rectum, or pelvic sidewall; and (3) presence and location of lymphadenopathy. On the basis of the MR findings, we determined suitability for pelvic exenteration by using generally accepted contraindications to surgery (involvement of the pelvic sidewall muscles or metastatic lymphadenopathy). In addition, tumor involvement of the bladder or rectum was evaluated to help determine the type of exenteration indicated. Surgical and/or histologic confirmation was available in all 23 cases. RESULTS. The accuracy of MR imaging in selecting patients was 83% (19 of 23), with a positive predictive value of 56% and a negative predictive value of 100%. In evaluating tumor involvement of the pelvic sidewall and lymph nodes, the negative predictive values were 100% and 95%, respectively. Tumor extension into the pelvic sidewall was overestimated in four patients, in three of whom it was not possible to distinguish radiation changes from tumor on MR images. For assessing extension of these pelvic tumors into the bladder and rectum, MR imaging had an accuracy of 81% and 85%, respectively. CONCLUSION. MR imaging may provide an accurate means of selecting patients considered for pelvic exenteration. MR accurately determined which patients should undergo the surgery, by demonstrating absence of sidewall abnormalities or adenopathy. Radiation changes could not be reliably distinguished from tumor involvement in those patients with sidewall abnormalities, however, especially in the first 6 to 12 months after treatment.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C MESSIOU, A G CHALMERS, K BOYLE, D WILSON, and P SAGAR Pre-operative MR assessment of recurrent rectal cancer Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2008; 81(966): 468 - 473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Pawlik, J. M. Skibber, and M. A. Rodriguez-Bigas Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Pelvic Malignancies Ann. Surg. Oncol., May 1, 2006; 13(5): 612 - 623. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R H Reznek and A Sahdev MR imaging in cervical cancer: seeing is believing: The 2004 Mackenzie Davidson Memorial Lecture Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2005; 78(Special_Issue_2): S73 - S85. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. G. H. Beets-Tan and G. L. Beets Rectal Cancer: Review with Emphasis on MR Imaging Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 335 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. K. Outwater Invited Commentary RadioGraphics, July 1, 1999; 19(4): 946 - 947. [Full Text] [PDF]