4.6 Article

Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in rectal cancer using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 355-364

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4034

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim was to determine the accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of pathological prognostic factors that influence local recurrence and survival in rectal cancer. Methods: Ninety-eight patients undergoing total mesorectal excision for biopsy-proven rectal cancer were assessed prospectively using high-resolution MM for tumour (T) and nodal (N) staging using the tumour node metastasis classification, depth of extramural tumour spread, the presence or absence of extramural venous invasion, a threatened circumferential resection margin and serosal involvement at or above the peritoneal reflection. Preoperative magnetic resonance assessment of these prognostic factors was compared with histopathological findings in carefully matched whole-mount sections of the resection specimen. Results: There was 94 per cent weighted agreement (weighted kappa = 0.67) between MM and pathology assessment of T stage. Agreement between MM and histological assessment of nodal status was 85 per cent (kappa = 0.68). Although involvement of small veins by tumour was not discernible using MRI, large (calibre greater than 3 mm) extramural venous invasion was identified correctly in 15 of 18 patients (kappa = 0.64). MRI predicted circumferential resection margin involvement with 92 per cent agreement (kappa = 0.81). Seven of nine patients with peritoneal perforation by tumour (stage T4) were identified correctly using MRI. Conclusion: High-resolution MRI of the rectum allows preoperative identification of important surgical and pathological prognostic risk factors. This may allow both better selection and assessment of patients undergoing preoperative therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available