Comparative study of transrectal ultrasonography, pelvic computerized tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of rectal cancer

Abstract

PURPOSE: The preoperative assessment of rectal cancer wall invasion and regional lymph node metastasis is essential for the planning of optimal therapy. This study was done to determine the accuracy and clinical usefulness of transrectal ultrasonography, pelvic computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging.

METHODS: A total of 89 patients with rectal cancer were examined with transrectal ultrasonography (n = 89), pelvic computed tomography (n = 69), and magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil (n = 73). The results obtained by these diagnostic modalities were compared with the histopathologic staging of specimens.

RESULTS: In staging depth of invasion, the overall accuracy was 81.1 percent (72/89) by transrectal ultrasonography, 65.2 percent (45/ 69) by computed tomography, and 81 percent (59/73) by magnetic resonance imaging. Overstaging was 10 percent (9/89) by transrectal ultrasonography, 17.4 percent (12/69) by computed tomography, and 11 percent (8/73) by magnetic resonance imaging; and understaging was 8 of 89 (8.9 percent) by transrectal ultrasonography, 12 of 69 (17.4 percent) by computed tomography, and 6 of 73 (8 percent) by magnetic resonance imaging. In staging lymph node metastasis, the overall accuracy rate was 54 of 85 (63.5 percent) in transrectal ultrasonography, 39 of 69 (56.5 percent) in computed tomography, and 46 of 73 (63 percent) in magnetic resonance imaging. The sensitivity was 24 of 45 (53.3 percent) in transrectal ultrasonography, 14 of 25 (56 percent) in computed tomography, and 33 of 42 (78.5 percent) in magnetic resonance imaging; and specificity was 30 of 40 (75.0 percent) in transrectal ultrasonography, 25 of 44 (56.8 percent) in computed tomography, and 13 of 31 (41.9 percent) in magnetic resonance imaging. The accuracy in detection of positive lateral pelvic lymph nodes under magnetic resonance imaging (n = 8) was 12.5 percent. The accuracy in detection of posterior vaginal wall invasion was 100 percent in transrectal ultrasonography (n = 7) and 100 percent in magnetic resonance imaging (n = 3), but 28.5 percent in computed tomography (n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS: Both transrectal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil exhibited similar accuracy and were superior to conventional computed tomography in preoperative assessment of depth of invasion and adjacent organ invasion. Because transrectal ultrasonography is a safer and more cost-effective modality than magnetic resonance imaging, transrectal ultrasonography is an appropriate method for preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Further efforts will be needed to provide a better staging of lymph node involvement.