Multi-detector Row Computed Tomography (MDCT) versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ECMRI) in Staging of Carcinoma Rectum

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is one of the most common tumors in industrialized countries and one of the most common malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT and ECMRI in preoperative staging of rectal cancers and correlation with intraoperat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JMS SKIMS 2012-06, Vol.15 (1), p.32-38
Hauptverfasser: Chowdri, Nisar A, Dar, Rayees Ahmad, Parray, Fazl Qadir, Shaheen, Feroze, Wani, Sabiya Hamid, Mushtaque, Majid, Wani, Rouf A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 38
container_issue 1
container_start_page 32
container_title JMS SKIMS
container_volume 15
creator Chowdri, Nisar A
Dar, Rayees Ahmad
Parray, Fazl Qadir
Shaheen, Feroze
Wani, Sabiya Hamid
Mushtaque, Majid
Wani, Rouf A
description BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is one of the most common tumors in industrialized countries and one of the most common malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT and ECMRI in preoperative staging of rectal cancers and correlation with intraoperative and histo-pathologic staging of resected specimen with respect to depth of tumor invasion (T-staging), lymph node metastasis (N- staging), and extra rectal spread (M-staging). METHODS: The study was a prospective one and consisted of 68 patients with biopsy proved rectal carcinoma. Patients were randomly selected for either of these two staging modalities (i.e., MDCT or ECMRI) using a random number table. MDCT and ECMRI findings were compared with intraoperative and histopathologic (reference standard) findings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of each diagnostic modality were assessed. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI for T1/T2 lesions were 75% and 87.5%, respectively, the difference being significant. For T3 lesions, the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI were 85.2% and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of both for T4 lesions was found to be 100%. Both ECMRI and MDCT were found to be almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: Endorectal coil MRI is superior to MDCT in local (T) staging of tumor and has overall more diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity than MDCT. ECMRI has a less tendency to under-stage the disease. However, both ECMRI and MDCT are almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. JMS 2012;15(1):32-38.
doi_str_mv 10.33883/jms.v15i1.106
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_33883_jms_v15i1_106</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_33883_jms_v15i1_106</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-crossref_primary_10_33883_jms_v15i1_1063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVj7FOwzAURS0EEhV0ZX5jOyTYJG3DHILokCVkYLOM4wSj2C-ynaL-AN-N1TKwMt2rq3uGQ8gdo2mWFUV2_2l8emAbzVJGtxdkQR93Dwlj9O3yT78mS-_1O83zXb6hebEg3_U8Bp10KigZ0EGDX1CimeagOmjR4ODE9HGEVf1Utms4KOdnD5Xt0EVAjPGsR6jFYFXQEhrl0QorFeyNGLQdYFWVdbNfg7bwGs4T9lAKJ7VFIyIhw2xuyVUvRq-Wv3lD0ueqLV8S6dB7p3o-OW2EO3JG-UmYR2F-Eo7TNvs38AOgpmBG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multi-detector Row Computed Tomography (MDCT) versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ECMRI) in Staging of Carcinoma Rectum</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Chowdri, Nisar A ; Dar, Rayees Ahmad ; Parray, Fazl Qadir ; Shaheen, Feroze ; Wani, Sabiya Hamid ; Mushtaque, Majid ; Wani, Rouf A</creator><creatorcontrib>Chowdri, Nisar A ; Dar, Rayees Ahmad ; Parray, Fazl Qadir ; Shaheen, Feroze ; Wani, Sabiya Hamid ; Mushtaque, Majid ; Wani, Rouf A</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is one of the most common tumors in industrialized countries and one of the most common malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT and ECMRI in preoperative staging of rectal cancers and correlation with intraoperative and histo-pathologic staging of resected specimen with respect to depth of tumor invasion (T-staging), lymph node metastasis (N- staging), and extra rectal spread (M-staging). METHODS: The study was a prospective one and consisted of 68 patients with biopsy proved rectal carcinoma. Patients were randomly selected for either of these two staging modalities (i.e., MDCT or ECMRI) using a random number table. MDCT and ECMRI findings were compared with intraoperative and histopathologic (reference standard) findings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of each diagnostic modality were assessed. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI for T1/T2 lesions were 75% and 87.5%, respectively, the difference being significant. For T3 lesions, the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI were 85.2% and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of both for T4 lesions was found to be 100%. Both ECMRI and MDCT were found to be almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: Endorectal coil MRI is superior to MDCT in local (T) staging of tumor and has overall more diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity than MDCT. ECMRI has a less tendency to under-stage the disease. However, both ECMRI and MDCT are almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. JMS 2012;15(1):32-38.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0972-110X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0972-110X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.33883/jms.v15i1.106</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>JMS SKIMS, 2012-06, Vol.15 (1), p.32-38</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chowdri, Nisar A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dar, Rayees Ahmad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parray, Fazl Qadir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaheen, Feroze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wani, Sabiya Hamid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mushtaque, Majid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wani, Rouf A</creatorcontrib><title>Multi-detector Row Computed Tomography (MDCT) versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ECMRI) in Staging of Carcinoma Rectum</title><title>JMS SKIMS</title><description>BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is one of the most common tumors in industrialized countries and one of the most common malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT and ECMRI in preoperative staging of rectal cancers and correlation with intraoperative and histo-pathologic staging of resected specimen with respect to depth of tumor invasion (T-staging), lymph node metastasis (N- staging), and extra rectal spread (M-staging). METHODS: The study was a prospective one and consisted of 68 patients with biopsy proved rectal carcinoma. Patients were randomly selected for either of these two staging modalities (i.e., MDCT or ECMRI) using a random number table. MDCT and ECMRI findings were compared with intraoperative and histopathologic (reference standard) findings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of each diagnostic modality were assessed. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI for T1/T2 lesions were 75% and 87.5%, respectively, the difference being significant. For T3 lesions, the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI were 85.2% and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of both for T4 lesions was found to be 100%. Both ECMRI and MDCT were found to be almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: Endorectal coil MRI is superior to MDCT in local (T) staging of tumor and has overall more diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity than MDCT. ECMRI has a less tendency to under-stage the disease. However, both ECMRI and MDCT are almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. JMS 2012;15(1):32-38.</description><issn>0972-110X</issn><issn>0972-110X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqVj7FOwzAURS0EEhV0ZX5jOyTYJG3DHILokCVkYLOM4wSj2C-ynaL-AN-N1TKwMt2rq3uGQ8gdo2mWFUV2_2l8emAbzVJGtxdkQR93Dwlj9O3yT78mS-_1O83zXb6hebEg3_U8Bp10KigZ0EGDX1CimeagOmjR4ODE9HGEVf1Utms4KOdnD5Xt0EVAjPGsR6jFYFXQEhrl0QorFeyNGLQdYFWVdbNfg7bwGs4T9lAKJ7VFIyIhw2xuyVUvRq-Wv3lD0ueqLV8S6dB7p3o-OW2EO3JG-UmYR2F-Eo7TNvs38AOgpmBG</recordid><startdate>20120611</startdate><enddate>20120611</enddate><creator>Chowdri, Nisar A</creator><creator>Dar, Rayees Ahmad</creator><creator>Parray, Fazl Qadir</creator><creator>Shaheen, Feroze</creator><creator>Wani, Sabiya Hamid</creator><creator>Mushtaque, Majid</creator><creator>Wani, Rouf A</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120611</creationdate><title>Multi-detector Row Computed Tomography (MDCT) versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ECMRI) in Staging of Carcinoma Rectum</title><author>Chowdri, Nisar A ; Dar, Rayees Ahmad ; Parray, Fazl Qadir ; Shaheen, Feroze ; Wani, Sabiya Hamid ; Mushtaque, Majid ; Wani, Rouf A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-crossref_primary_10_33883_jms_v15i1_1063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chowdri, Nisar A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dar, Rayees Ahmad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parray, Fazl Qadir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaheen, Feroze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wani, Sabiya Hamid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mushtaque, Majid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wani, Rouf A</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>JMS SKIMS</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chowdri, Nisar A</au><au>Dar, Rayees Ahmad</au><au>Parray, Fazl Qadir</au><au>Shaheen, Feroze</au><au>Wani, Sabiya Hamid</au><au>Mushtaque, Majid</au><au>Wani, Rouf A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multi-detector Row Computed Tomography (MDCT) versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ECMRI) in Staging of Carcinoma Rectum</atitle><jtitle>JMS SKIMS</jtitle><date>2012-06-11</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>32</spage><epage>38</epage><pages>32-38</pages><issn>0972-110X</issn><eissn>0972-110X</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer is one of the most common tumors in industrialized countries and one of the most common malignant tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of MDCT and ECMRI in preoperative staging of rectal cancers and correlation with intraoperative and histo-pathologic staging of resected specimen with respect to depth of tumor invasion (T-staging), lymph node metastasis (N- staging), and extra rectal spread (M-staging). METHODS: The study was a prospective one and consisted of 68 patients with biopsy proved rectal carcinoma. Patients were randomly selected for either of these two staging modalities (i.e., MDCT or ECMRI) using a random number table. MDCT and ECMRI findings were compared with intraoperative and histopathologic (reference standard) findings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of each diagnostic modality were assessed. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI for T1/T2 lesions were 75% and 87.5%, respectively, the difference being significant. For T3 lesions, the diagnostic accuracies of MDCT and ECMRI were 85.2% and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of both for T4 lesions was found to be 100%. Both ECMRI and MDCT were found to be almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: Endorectal coil MRI is superior to MDCT in local (T) staging of tumor and has overall more diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity than MDCT. ECMRI has a less tendency to under-stage the disease. However, both ECMRI and MDCT are almost equally accurate and specific in detecting perirectal lymph node involvement. JMS 2012;15(1):32-38.</abstract><doi>10.33883/jms.v15i1.106</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0972-110X
ispartof JMS SKIMS, 2012-06, Vol.15 (1), p.32-38
issn 0972-110X
0972-110X
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_33883_jms_v15i1_106
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Multi-detector Row Computed Tomography (MDCT) versus Endorectal Coil Magnetic Resonance Imaging (ECMRI) in Staging of Carcinoma Rectum
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T14%3A55%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multi-detector%20Row%20Computed%20Tomography%20(MDCT)%20versus%20Endorectal%20Coil%20Magnetic%20Resonance%20Imaging%20(ECMRI)%20in%20Staging%20of%20Carcinoma%20Rectum&rft.jtitle=JMS%20SKIMS&rft.au=Chowdri,%20Nisar%20A&rft.date=2012-06-11&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=32&rft.epage=38&rft.pages=32-38&rft.issn=0972-110X&rft.eissn=0972-110X&rft_id=info:doi/10.33883/jms.v15i1.106&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_33883_jms_v15i1_106%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true