AJR Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chun, H.-K.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, C. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chun, H.-K.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, C. K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.05.1234
AJR 2006; 187:1557-1562
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Original Research

Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer: Comparison of 3-T High-Field MRI and Endorectal Sonography

Ho-Kyung Chun1, Dongil Choi2, Min Ju Kim2, Jongmee Lee2, Seong Hyeon Yun1, Seung Hoon Kim2, Soon Jin Lee2 and Chan Kyo Kim2

1 Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
2 Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50 Ilwon-dong, Kangnam-ku, Seoul 135-710, South Korea.

Received July 16, 2005; accepted after revision November 3, 2005.

 
Supported by a Samsung Medical Center Clinical Research Development Program grant.

Address correspondence to D. Choi.


Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to compare phased-array 3-T MRI and endorectal sonography in the preoperative staging of rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. During an 8-month period, 24 patients with rectal cancer underwent both 3-T MRI performed with phased-array coils and 7.5- to 10-MHz endorectal sonography in the 3 weeks before surgical resection. Three radiologists independently reviewed the MR and endorectal sonographic images. The histopathologic findings in resected specimens were used to evaluate the sensitivities and specificities of these techniques for invasion of the muscularis propria and perirectal tissue and for lymph node involvement. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the diagnostic accuracies of the techniques.

RESULTS. For muscularis propria invasion, the mean sensitivities of both MRI and endorectal sonography were 100%, and the mean specificities were 66.7% and 61.1%, respectively. The differences in the mean sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant (p > 0.05 in each case). For perirectal tissue invasion, MRI and endorectal sonography had comparable sensitivities and specificities (91.1% vs 100%, 92.6% vs 81.5%; p > 0.05 in each case). They also had similar sensitivities and specificities for lymph node involvement (63.6% vs 57.6%, 92.3% vs 82.1%; p > 0.05 in each case). ROC curves for muscularis propria invasion and lymph node involvement showed no differences in diagnostic accuracy. The mean area under the ROC curve for endorectal sonography (Az = 0.996) for perirectal tissue invasion, however, showed higher accuracy than that of MRI (Az = 0.938, p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 3-T MRI were similar to those of endorectal sonography for muscularis propria invasion and lymph node involvement, but for perirectal tissue invasion, 3-T MRI was less accurate than endorectal sonography.

Keywords: colon • MRI • rectal cancer • sonography


Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The prognosis of rectal cancer is closely related to the stage at diagnosis and the choice of treatment [1, 2]. Because appropriate preoperative treatment decisions require knowledge of the exact stage of a tumor, accurate radiologic T staging (depth of cancer invasion) and N staging (lymph node metastasis) are essential. Radiologic staging can be performed with endorectal sonography, MRI, and CT. In many comparisons of the three techniques, endorectal sonography has been found to be the most accurate for local invasion of rectal cancer [3-10]. In those studies, 0.5-T, 1.0-T, and 1.5-T magnetic field strength systems for MRI were used. A 3-T high-field MR system with higher signal-to-noise ratio, which increases spatial and temporal resolution, has been developed and used most often for body imaging [11-14]. This system can show greater anatomic detail than 1.5-T MRI and has potential for improving diagnostic value in the local staging of rectal cancer. To the best of our knowledge, few published reports have described the diagnostic accuracy of 3-T MRI in staging of rectal cancer. The purpose of our study was to assess the accuracy of 3-T high-field MRI compared with endorectal sonography in preoperative staging of rectal cancer.


Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patient Selection
Between November 2004 and June 2005, rectal MRI with a 3-T system and phased-array coils was performed at our institution on 58 consecutive patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum on the basis of their colonoscopic findings and the pathologic features of the biopsy specimen. Of these 58 patients, 32 patients underwent endorectal sonography within the 7 days before or after MRI. Eight of these patients were excluded: two did not undergo rectal surgery, and six with disease in advanced stages underwent chemoradiation therapy before surgery. Twenty-four patients with rectal cancer were ultimately included in the study. There were 12 men and 12 women (age range, 32-79 years; mean age, 59.3 years; median age, 58 years). Eighteen patients underwent anterior resection with total mesorectal excision, three patients underwent Miles' operation with total mesorectal excision, and three patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery. The mean interval between 3-T MRI and rectal surgery was 7.2 days (range, 3-14 days). The institutional review board approved this study, and informed consent was obtained from each patient.

MRI Techniques
All patients underwent MRI with a 3.0-T whole-body system (Intera Achieva 3T, Philips Medical Systems) with a dedicated cardiac sensitivity-encoding coil (six elements of phased-array coil) at 80 mT/m and a slew rate of 200 T/m/s. No IV antiperistaltic agent was administered. The patients were asked to perform rectal cleansing 2 hours before the MRI examination with two rectal suppositories (bisacodyl, Dulcolax suppository, Boeringer Ingelheim). In the MRI suite, warm water was administered with a balloon-tipped rectal tube, and the rectum was filled until the patient reported it felt full. The volume of water ranged from 150 to 400 mL. The rectal tube was removed after instillation.

A coronal localizing image was obtained for selection of axial and sagittal images with a T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequence (TR/TE, 2,500-5,000/100; echo-train length of 6; 5-mm slice thickness; 1-mm gap; 256 x 256 matrix; 24-cm field of view, 2 signals acquired; sensitivity-encoding factor of 2; and sequence duration of 3-5 minutes). The sagittal images were used to plan thin-slice axial and coronal imaging. The axial and coronal T2-weighted TSE sequence (2,500-5,000/100; echo-train length of 6; 3-mm slice thickness; 1 mm gap; 312 x 312 matrix; 18-cm field of view; 4 signals acquired; sensitivity-encoding factor of 2; 1-mm3 voxel size; sequence duration of 3-4 minutes) was angled perpendicular to the long axis of the rectal cancer. Finally, an axial T1-weighted TSE sequence (656/10; echo-train length of 5; 5-mm slice thickness; 1-mm gap; 4 signals acquired; 256 x 256 matrix; 24-cm field of view; sequence duration of 4-5 minutes) was acquired. All sequences were obtained with no fat saturation. The total examination time for each patient ranged from 19 to 22 minutes.

Endorectal Sonographic Examinations
All endorectal sonographic examinations were performed with a real-time scanner and a 10- and 7.5-MHz 360° rigid radial transducer (model SSD-5500; Aloka) by one of two experienced abdominal radiologists. The radiologists were provided with full knowledge of the results of endoscopic examinations. Patients were asked to perform rectal cleansing 2 hours before endorectal sonography with two rectal suppositories (bisacodyl) and then to lie in the left lateral decubitus position. After 50-150 mL of degassed water was instilled in the rectal lumen with an enema syringe [15], the transducer was inserted into the anus and was advanced into the rectum as deeply as possible. As the transducer was slowly pulled back, serial images of the entire length of the rectum and anal canal were obtained. The transducer used was equipped with a mechanical rotating probe that provided 360° anorectal images. The total examination time for each patient ranged from 7 to 20 minutes.

Histopathologic Examinations
After total mesorectal excision, each specimen was opened along the anterior border proximal to the segment containing the tumor. Before the specimens were fixed in formalin, a pathologist harvested the lymph nodes in the mesorectum. All specimens, including those from transanal endoscopic microsurgery, were fixed by total immersion in buffered formalin for 48 hours and were sliced transversely at 3-mm intervals. The extent of local tumor staging in each slice was assessed according to the tumor component of the TNM system.

Image Analysis
Three experienced abdominal radiologists independently reviewed the MR and sonographic images in random order and in a blinded manner. The interval between reviews of the MR and of the sonographic images was at least 3 weeks. All images were evaluated with a 2,000 x 2,000 PACS (Path-speed workstation, GE Healthcare) with adjustment of the optimal window setting in each case.

MRI allowed visualization and delineation of the layers of both the rectal wall and mesorectal fascia of all patients. The tumor had higher signal intensity on the T2-weighted images than did the muscle layer. The depth of cancer invasion on MRI (mT stage) was interpreted as follows: mT1, the tumor signal intensity was confined to the submucosal layer and had relatively low signal intensity compared with the high signal intensity of the surrounding submucosa; mT2, the tumor signal intensity extended to the muscle layer, leading to irregularity or thickening of the muscle layer, but without perirectal tissue invasion; mT3, the tumor signal intensity extended through the muscular layer into the perirectal tissue, or angiolymphatic tumor invasion (irregularly thickened strands) was present in the mesorectum; and mT4, the tumor signal intensity extended to an adjacent organ, mesorectal fascia, or bowel [16-18]. Rather than using the size criteria, we defined the criteria for lymph node metastasis as any size of indistinct border, irregular margin, or mixed signal intensity [19]. Observers recorded the number of metastatic lymph nodes at MRI of each patient. Using a confidence level scoring system, observers independently scored the MR images for muscularis propria invasion, perirectal tissue invasion, and lymph node involvement. The following confidence levels were used: 1, definitely absent; 2, probably absent; 3, possibly present; 4, probably present; and 5, definitely present.

Observers were able to detect hypoechoic rectal tumors on endorectal sonographic images. They evaluated depth of tumor invasion, which was adjusted for sonography as previously described [15, 20, 21]. The depth of cancer invasion at sonography (sT stage) was interpreted as follows: sT1, the middle echogenic layer (representing submucosa) was irregularly thinned by a hypoechoic mass; sT2, complete disruption of submucosa was present, often coupled with thickening of the outer hypoechoic layer (representing muscularis propria); sT3, the border between the muscularis propria and the outer echogenic layer (interpreted as perirectal tissue) was irregular or serrated; and sT4, the mass invaded an adjacent organ. Observers considered uniformly hypoechoic rounded or oval structures with discrete margins situated in the perirectal tissue and having a short-axis diameter larger than 3 mm to be metastatic lymph nodes, and their data were recorded [15, 19-21]. Using a five-point confidence scale, observers independently scored the endorectal sonographic images for muscularis propria invasion, perirectal tissue invasion, and lymph node involvement.

Statistical Analysis
The study coordinator correlated pathologic stage (pT staging and pN staging) with the results of MRI and endorectal sonography analyzed by three observers. For local invasion of cancer, we calculated the sensitivities and specificities of endorectal sonography and MRI as follows: for muscularis propria invasion, stage T2 or higher versus stage T1; for perirectal tissue invasion, stage T3 or higher versus stage T2 or lower; and for invasion of adjacent organs, stage T4 versus stage T3 or lower [3]. In addition, to determine the presence or absence of metastatic lymph nodes, we calculated and compared the sensitivities and specificities of each technique. Using the McNemar test, we assessed the differences between estimates for endorectal sonography and MRI. A p value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

The observer performances for predicting muscularis propria invasion, perirectal tissue invasion, and lymph node involvement were examined by analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Composite ROC curves for the combined performance of all observers were obtained by application of the maximum-likelihood curve-fitting algorithm to the pooled data of the three observers for each imaging technique. The area under each ROC curve (Az) was used to indicate the overall performance of the imaging techniques.


Figure 1
View larger version (182K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1A —52-year-old man with T1 rectal cancer (pT1) who underwent anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Axial MR image from T2-weighted turbo spin-echo acquisition shows tumor (arrows) extending into muscular layer with loss of interface between submucosa and muscle layer. All three observers interpreted lesion as mT2, overstaging it.

 


Figure 2
View larger version (200K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1B —52-year-old man with T1 rectal cancer (pT1) who underwent anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Transverse endorectal sonographic image shows small hypoechoic mass (arrows) confined to mucosal and submucosal layers. All three observers correctly interpreted lesion as sT1.

 
Interobserver agreement about local invasion of cancer and metastatic lymph nodes was evaluated with kappa statistics. Degree of agreement was categorized as follows: kappa values of 0.00-0.20 were considered to indicate poor agreement; kappa values of 0.21-0.40, fair agreement; kappa values of 0.41-0.60, moderate agreement; kappa values of 0.61-0.80, good agreement; and kappa values of 0.81-1.00, excellent agreement [22]. Statistical analyses were performed with commercially available software packages (SPSS for Windows release 10.0, SPSS; MedCalc version 7.1, MedCalc Software).


Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
At histopathologic examination after surgery, all rectal tumors were verified as adenocarcinoma. All rectal cancers were identified on both endorectal sonography and MRI.

Local Invasion
Histopathologic examinations revealed six T1 cancers, three T2 cancers, and 15 T3 cancers. No T4 tumors were found in any of the surgical specimens. For muscularis propria invasion, the mean sensitivities of both MRI and endorectal sonography for all observers were 100% (54 of 54), and the mean specificities were 66.7% (12 of 18) and 61.1% (11 of 18), respectively (Table 1). The differences in mean sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant (p > 0.05 in each case). For three observers, six (10%) of 60 mT2 or mT3 cancers on MRI and seven (11.5%) of 61 sT2 or sT3 on endorectal sonography were false-positive results (pT1); thus all of these tumors were overstaged (Fig. 1A, 1B). The positive predictive value of MRI was 90.0% (54 of 60) and that of sonography was 88.5% (54 of 61). The negative predictive values of both techniques were 100% (12 of 12 and 11 of 11). For muscularis propria invasion, the accuracies of MRI and endorectal sonography for all observers were 91.7% (66 of 72) and 90.3% (65 of 72), respectively. In the results of ROC assessment of pooled data from the three observers, the Az values of MRI (mean, 0.971; 95% CI, 0.901-0.995) and endorectal sonography (mean, 0.978; 95% CI, 0.912-0.997) for muscularis propria invasion showed no difference in diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.696).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Diagnostic Accuracy of 3-T MRI and Endorectal Sonography in Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer by Three Observers

 

For perirectal tissue invasion, the mean sensitivities of MRI and endorectal sonography for all observers were 91.1% (41 of 45) and 100% (45 of 45), respectively, and the difference between these sensitivities was not statistically significant (p = 0.125) (Table 1). The mean specificities of MRI and endorectal sonography for all observers were 92.6% (25 of 27) and 81.5% (22 of 27), respectively. Again, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.453). On MRI, for all observers, two (4.7%) of 43 mT3 cancers were overstaged (mT3-pT2) (Fig. 2A, 2B), and four (13.8%) of 29 mT2 or mT1 cancers were understaged (mT2-pT3) (Fig. 3A, 3B). On endorectal sonography, five (10%) of 50 sT3 lesions were overstaged. The positive predictive value of MRI was 95.3% (41 of 43) and that of sonography was 90.0% (45 of 50). The negative predictive value of MRI was 86.2% (25 of 29) and that of sonography was 100% (22 of 22). For perirectal tissue invasion, the accuracies of MRI and endorectal sonography for all observers were 91.7% and 93.1%, respectively. The observers did not consider any rectal lesion T4 cancer on either MR or endorectal sonographic images.


Figure 3
View larger version (194K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2A —70-year-old man with T2 rectal cancer (pT2) who underwent anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Axial MR image from T2-weighted turbo spin-echo acquisition shows tumor (arrows) extending through muscle layer into perirectal tissue (arrowheads). All three observers interpreted lesion as mT3, overstaging it.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (219K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2B —70-year-old man with T2 rectal cancer (pT2) who underwent anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Transverse endorectal sonographic image shows hypoechoic mass (arrows) invading muscularis propria (arrowheads). Perirectal tissue is clear. All three observers correctly interpreted lesion as sT2.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (201K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3A —51-year-old woman with T3 rectal cancer (pT3) who underwent anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Axial MR image from T2-weighted turbo spin-echo acquisition shows tumor (arrows) extending into muscle layer, but perirectal tissue is clear. All three observers interpreted lesion as mT2, understaging it.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (202K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3B —51-year-old woman with T3 rectal cancer (pT3) who underwent anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Transverse endorectal sonographic image shows hypoechoic mass (arrows) penetrating into perirectal tissue (arrowheads). All three observers correctly interpreted lesion as sT3.

 
In the results of ROC assessment of pooled data from the three observers, the Az of endorectal sonography (mean, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.855-0.981) for perirectal tissue invasion had higher diagnostic accuracy than that of MRI (mean, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.942-1.000) (p =0.028). The ROC curves of these pooled data for each imaging technique are shown in Figure 4.


Figure 7
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4 —Graph shows composite receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for 3-T MRI (Figure 7) and endorectal sonography ({diamondsuit}) calculated with pooled data reviewed by three observers. Mean area under ROC curve (Az) indicates diagnostic accuracy for perirectal tissue invasion at endorectal sonography (Az = 0.982 ± 0.006) and at 3-T MRI (Az = 0.952 ± 0.010). Difference in mean Az was statistically significant (p = 0.028).

 
For muscularis propria invasion, the kappa values among the three observers showed good or excellent agreement for both imaging techniques (Table 2). For perirectal tissue invasion, the kappa values among the three observers showed excellent agreement for both imaging techniques.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2: Interobserver Agreement in Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer

 

Lymph Node Involvement
Histopathologic examination revealed 225 lymph nodes from the rectal cancer resection specimens of 21 patients who underwent total mesorectal excision. Of these, 35 (15.6%) of the perirectal nodes were found to be metastatic. Thirteen patients, including three who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery, had N0 disease. Seven patients had N1 disease (up to three metastatic nodes), and four had N2 disease (four or more metastatic nodes).

For lymph node involvement, the mean sensitivities of MRI and endorectal sonography for all observers were 63.6% (21 of 33) and 57.6% (19 of 33), and the mean specificities were 92.3% (36 of 39) and 82.1% (32 of 39), respectively (Table 1). The differences in mean sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant (p > 0.05 in each case). The positive predictive value of MRI was 87.5% (21 of 24), and the negative predictive value was 75% (36 of 48). The positive predictive value of endorectal sonography was 73.1% (19 of 26), and the negative predictive value was 69.6% (32 of 46). The accuracies of MRI and endorectal sonography were 79.2% (57 of 72) and 70.8% (51 of 72), respectively. The ROC curves for MRI (mean, 0.776; 95% CI, 0.663-0.866) and endorectal sonography (mean, 0.721; 95% CI, 0.603-0.821) for lymph node involvement showed no difference in diagnostic accuracy (p = 0.43).

The kappa values for the three observers of lymph node involvement showed moderate agreement for MRI (Table 2). For endorectal sonography, the kappa values for the three observers showed good or excellent agreement.


Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Accurate preoperative assessment of rectal cancer is critical for proper management because treatment strategies must be individualized according to depth of cancer invasion and degree of involvement of the lymph nodes [1, 2]. In general, local therapeutic strategies are local excision or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (mainly stages T1 or less), total mesorectal excision (mainly stages T2 and T3), and a long course of preoperative radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy aimed at decreasing the size and stage of the tumor (mainly stage T4) [1, 23-25]. When lymph node metastasis is present outside of the endopelvic envelope, the tumor should be considered locally advanced.

In patients with rectal cancer, CT is an important imaging technique for preoperative staging of colorectal cancer because it allows evaluation for distant metastasis. CT, however, is limited in depicting differentiation of the layers of the rectal wall, showing the mesorectal fascia, and depicting cancer invasion into adjacent organs. MDCT may improve the diagnostic value of CT, because it allows assessment of local disease with improved visualization of the mesorectal fascia [26]. The increased speed and spatial resolution of MDCT may allow multiplanar reconstruction without stepping artifacts. Multiplanar reconstruction in the coronal and sagittal views helps in evaluation of adjacent organs for invasion of rectal cancer [27].

Some investigations have reported good results with high-spatial-resolution MRI performed at 1.5 T with phased-array coils [16, 28, 29]. Brown et al. [16] reported that the accuracy of staging in rectal cancer at 1.5 T was 100% with complete agreement between two observers. However, in their study, the total examination time required for good image resolution was too long, ranging from 45 to 65 minutes. This problem can be overcome with a 3-T MRI system. Because the increase in signal-to-noise ratio at 3-T can decrease the number of signals averaged, the total MRI examination time for scanning at 3 T is quite a bit shorter than that at 1.5 T [11-14]. In our study, the MRI examination time for each patient ranged from 19 to 22 minutes. In addition, the higher signal-to-noise ratio of 3-T MRI can improve spatial resolution and allow acquisition of thinner sections. Because signal-to-noise ratio is not solely determined by magnetic field strength, optimization of the imaging parameters and improvement of phased-array radiofrequency coils are important for maximal signal-to-noise ratios in body imaging [12].

According to a meta-analysis of 90 articles [3], the specificity of sonography (95% CI, 80-90%) for muscularis propria invasion is significantly higher than that of MRI (95% CI, 52-82%). In our study, however, the differences in specificities were not statistically significant. This discordance is most likely a result of the small numbers (9 of 24, 37.5%) of T1 and T2 cancers in our study. For perirectal tissue invasion in the meta-analysis, the sensitivity of sonography (95% CI, 88-92%) was significantly higher than that of MRI (95% CI, 74-87%), and the specificities were comparable. In ROC assessment of diagnostic accuracy for perirectal tissue invasion in the meta-analysis, sonography was found to be better than MRI. Our study also showed endorectal sonography to be more accurate than MRI in assessment of perirectal tissue invasion.

In patients with rectal cancer, identification of metastatic lymph nodes with endorectal sonography, CT, and MRI is still a challenge for radiologists [3]. For lymph node involvement, estimates of sonography and MRI were comparable in the meta-analysis and in our study. Sonography can be used to assess only perirectal lymph nodes, whereas MRI can also be used to evaluate periiliac lymph nodes.

The diagnostic criteria for nodal metastasis continue to be debated. Some authors regard any visible node in the perirectal tissue as a positive finding, whereas others use size criteria with a range of 3-10 mm [30, 31]. Brown et al. [19] found that an irregular border or mixed signal intensity of lymph nodes at MRI can improve prediction of the presence of nodal metastasis regardless of the size of the lymph nodes. Despite detection of lymph nodes as small as 2-3 mm on high-spatial-resolution images, identification of nodal metastasis is uncertain. Although the spatial resolution at 3-T MRI was increased in our study, the sensitivity in detection of nodal metastasis was as low as 63.6% and could not be improved [8, 32, 33]. The morphologic criteria used in our study made it difficult to differentiate reactive and metastatic nodes. To improve the sensitivity of MRI in lymph node detection, techniques such as use of lymph node-specific MRI contrast agents show promising results in staging of nodal metastasis [34].

Although it was found better than MRI in our study, endorectal sonography has drawbacks. First, sonographic examinations depend on the experience of the operators of the equipment. Second, it is exceedingly difficult, almost impossible, to evaluate stenotic tumors and tumors situated 10 cm from the anal verge. In addition, selection of patients can lead to biased results. In our study, overstaging was the most frequent cause of inaccurate staging with endorectal sonography, a finding consistent with those in the literature [35, 36]. The presence of inflammatory reactions and desmoplastic changes around tumors can cause overstaging because these changes cannot be differentiated from cancer infiltration [36, 37]. In our study, endorectal sonography with water instillation into the rectal lumen was used to obtain an optimal sonic window [15]. This method is thought to be a reliable method of reducing overstaging of rectal cancers because it decreases artifacts originating from the tumor itself or from feces. In addition, by using the water instillation method, we were able to easily perform endorectal sonography in a distended rectal lumen and could advance the transducer into the upper rectum.

Our study had several limitations. The first was the small population, particularly the small number of T1 and T2 lesions (9 of 24, 37.5%). Second, patients with T4 and advanced T3 cancers (cancer infiltration near mesorectal fascia) were not included. For these patients, preoperative radiation therapy is considered the standard of treatment at many institutions. Thus, these patients underwent chemoradiation therapy before surgery in our hospital. It is difficult to correlate findings on imaging before radiation therapy with the findings in surgical specimens after radiation owing to shrinkage of the rectal cancer, postirradiation edema of the rectal wall, and interval regression of perirectal lymph nodes [38, 39]. Finally, despite water filling into the rectum before MRI, some patients did not have a fully distended rectum at MRI. In these patients, it was difficult to evaluate perirectal tissue invasion [40].

In conclusion, in our preliminary study, despite use of a newly developed 3-T system, MRI was less accurate than endorectal sonography in the detection of perirectal tissue invasion.


References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Visser BC, Varma MG, Welton ML. Local therapy for rectal cancer. Surg Oncol 2001;10 : 61-69[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Reynolds JV, Joyce WP, Dolan J, et al. Pathological evidence in support of total mesorectal excision in the management of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1996;83 : 1112-1115[Medline]
  3. Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology 2004;232 : 773-783[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Beynon J, Mortensen NJ, Foy DM, Channer JL, Virjee J, Goddard P. Pre-operative assessment of local invasion in rectal cancer: digital examination, endoluminal sonography or computed tomography? Br J Surg 1986; 73:1015 -1017[Medline]
  5. Rifkin MD, Wechsler RJ. A comparison of computed tomography and endorectal ultrasound in staging rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 1986; 1:219 -223[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Holdsworth PJ, Johnston D, Chalmers AG, et al. Endoluminal ultrasound and computed tomography in the staging of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1988;75 : 1019-1022[Medline]
  7. Rotte KH, Kluhs L, Kleinau H, Kriedemann E. Computed tomography and endosonography in the preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 1989; 9:187 -190[Medline]
  8. Thaler W, Watzka S, Martin F, et al. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer by endoluminal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary results of a prospective, comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37:1189 -1193[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Starck M, Bohe M, Fork FT, Lindstrom C, Sjoberg S. Endoluminal ultrasound and low-field magnetic resonance imaging are superior to clinical examination in the preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Surg 1995; 161:841 -845[Medline]
  10. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Nelson H, et al. A prospective, blinded assessment of the impact of preoperative staging on the management of rectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2002;123 : 24-32[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Sosna J, Rofsky NM, Gaston SM, DeWolf WC, Lenkinski RE. Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. Acad Radiol2003; 10:846 -853[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Uematsu H, Takahashi M, Dougherty L, Hatabu H. High field body MR imaging: preliminary experiences.Clin Imaging2004; 28:159 -162[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Futterer JJ, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, et al. Initial experience of 3 Tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 1H-spectroscopic imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2004; 39:671 -680[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. 3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences. Eur Radiol 2005;15 : 639-644[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Kim S, Lim HK, Lee SJ, et al. Depiction and local staging of rectal tumors: comparison of transrectal US before and after water instillation. Radiology 2004;231 : 117-122[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Brown G, Richards CJ, Newcombe RG, et al. Rectal carcinoma: thin-section MR imaging for staging in 28 patients. Radiology 1999;211 : 215-222[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Gagliardi G, Bayar S, Smith R, Salem RR. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging with external phase-arrayed coils. Arch Surg 2002;137 : 447-451[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL. Rectal cancer: review with emphasis on MR imaging. Radiology 2004;232 : 335-346[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, et al. Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology2003; 227:371 -377[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Hildebrandt U, Schüder G, Feifel G. Preoperative staging of rectal and colonic cancer. Endoscopy1994; 26:810 -812[Medline]
  21. Akahoshi K, Yoshinaga S, Soejima A, et al. Transit endoscopic ultrasound of colorectal cancer using a 12 MHz catheter probe. Br J Radiol 2001; 74:1017 -1022[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Fleiss JL, ed. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley, 1981:212 -236
  23. Kaminsky-Forrett MC, Conroy T, Luporsi E, et al. Prognostic implications of downstaging following preoperative radiation therapy for operable T3-T4 rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42:935 -941[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Blair S, Ellenhorn JD. Transanal excision for low rectal cancers is curative in early-stage disease with favorable histology. Am Surg 2000; 66:817 -820[Medline]
  25. Gao JD, Shao YF, Bi JJ, Shi SS, Liang J, Hu YH. Local excision carcinoma in early stage. World J Gastroenterol2003; 9:871 -873[Medline]
  26. Vogl TJ, Luboldt W, Herzog C, Hammerstingl R. Contrast-enhanced multislice CT in detection and evaluation of abdominal neoplasms [in German]. Radiologe 2002;42 : 646-654[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Kulinna C, Eibel R, Matzek W, et al. Staging of rectal cancer: diagnostic potential of multiplanar reconstructions with MDCT. AJR 2004; 183:421 -427[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, Vliegen RF, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of tumour-free resection margin in rectal cancer surgery. Lancet 2001;357 : 497-504[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Vliegen RF, Beets GL, von Meyenfeldt MF, et al. Rectal cancer: MR imaging in local staging—is gadolinium-based contrast material helpful? Radiology 2005;234 : 179-188[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Fielding LP, Phillips RK, Fry JS, Hittinger R. Prediction of outcome after curative resection for large bowel cancer. Lancet 1986; 2:904 -907[Medline]
  31. Vogl TJ, Pegios W, Mack MG, et al. Accuracy of staging rectal tumors with contrast-enhanced transrectal MR imaging. AJR 1997; 168:1427 -1434[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Schnall MD, Furth EE, Rosato EF, Kressel HY. Rectal tumor stage: correlation of endorectal MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 1994;190 : 709-714[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Kwok H, Bissett IP, Hill GL. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2000;15 : 9-20[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Koh DM, Brown G, Temple L, et al. Rectal cancer: mesorectal lymph nodes at MR imaging with USPIO versus histopathologic findings—initial observations. Radiology 2004;231 : 91-99[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Tio TL, Coene PP, van Delden OM, et al. Colorectal carcinoma: preoperative TNM classification with endosonography. Radiology 1991;179 : 165-170[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Maier AG, Barton PP, Neuhold NR, Herbst F, Teleky BK, Lechner GL. Peritumoral tissue reaction at transrectal US as a possible cause of overstaging in rectal cancer: histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1997;203 : 785-789[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Massari M, De Simone M, Cioffi U, Rosso L, Chiarelli M, Gabrielli F. Value and limits of endorectal ultrasonography for preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma. Surg Laparosc Endosc1998; 8:438 -444[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Blomqvist L, Machado M, Rubio C, et al. Rectal tumor staging: MR imaging using pelvic phased array and endorectal coils vs endoscopic ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 2000;10 : 653-660[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Graf W, Dahlberg M, Osman MM, Holmberg L, Pahlmann L, Gilmelius B. Short-term preoperative radiotherapy results in down-staging of rectal cancer: a study of 1316 patients. Radiother Oncol1997; 43:133 -137[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Kim MJ, Lim JS, OH YT, et al. Preoperative MRI of rectal cancer with and without rectal water filling: an intraindividual comparison. AJR 2004; 182:1469 -1476[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
T. Leibold, J. Shia, L. Ruo, B. D. Minsky, T. Akhurst, M. J. Gollub, M. S. Ginsberg, S. Larson, E. Riedel, W. D. Wong, et al.
Prognostic Implications of the Distribution of Lymph Node Metastases in Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2008; 26(13): 2106 - 2111.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
X. M. Zhang, H. L. Zhang, D. Yu, Y. Dai, D. Bi, M. R. Prince, and C. Li
3-T MRI of Rectal Carcinoma: Preoperative Diagnosis, Staging, and Planning of Sphincter-Sparing Surgery
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1271 - 1278.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
S. I. Sher
Invited Commentary
RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1462 - 1464.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chun, H.-K.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, C. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chun, H.-K.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, C. K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS