Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To obtain performance values of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment regarding tumor staging, nodal staging, and tumor-free circumferential resection margins (CRMs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiology 2013-10, Vol.269 (1), p.101-112
Hauptverfasser: van der Paardt, Marije P, Zagers, Marjolein B, Beets-Tan, Regina G H, Stoker, Jaap, Bipat, Shandra
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 112
container_issue 1
container_start_page 101
container_title Radiology
container_volume 269
creator van der Paardt, Marije P
Zagers, Marjolein B
Beets-Tan, Regina G H
Stoker, Jaap
Bipat, Shandra
description To obtain performance values of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment regarding tumor staging, nodal staging, and tumor-free circumferential resection margins (CRMs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies regarding restaging compared with a reference standard by using the terms rectal neoplasms, MR imaging, and chemotherapy. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used, and data on imaging criteria, histopathologic criteria, and restaging were extracted. Responders were defined as positives and nonresponders, as negatives. Mean sensitivity, mean specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined by using a bivariate random-effects model. A positive LR greater than 5 implied moderate results for responders. Thirty-three studies evaluated 1556 patients. For tumor stage, mean sensitivity was 50.4%, mean specificity was 91.2%, positive LR was 5.76, and negative LR was 0.54. Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging showed comparable positive LR with significantly improved sensitivity (P = .01) and negative LR (P = .04). Experienced observers showed higher sensitivity (P = .01) and lower negative LR (P = .03) compared with less experienced observers. For CRM, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.3%, 85.9%, 5.40, and 0.28, respectively. For nodal stage per patient, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.5%, 59.8%, 1.90, and 0.39, respectively; and for nodal stage on a lesion basis, these values were 90.7%, 73.0%, 3.37, and 0.13, respectively. MR imaging showed heterogeneous results of diagnostic performances for restaging rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment, but significantly better results were demonstrated when DW imaging was used or with experienced observers. MR imaging can also be used for evaluation of CRM staging, but nodal staging remains challenging.
doi_str_mv 10.1148/radiol.13122833
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1436563391</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1436563391</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-6c604ce675fb9082b882b51a3d12f47bfd0adf26fbb395ff47aad6a8cfacda2a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UU1v1DAQtRCILoUzNzRHLmntOF_LDVXlQyoCIThHE3ucNXLiYDtb5QfxP_GyLYfR6L1580ajx9hrwa-EqLrrgNp6dyWkKMtOyidsJ-qyLTKun7Id51IWXSX2F-xFjL84F1Xdtc_ZRSk7Ltq23bE_3zBZmlOE-4OHddYURg9LIL9QyKMjgTrQ5P8dSofMLRsYH8B5hc5tgPqIsyINgVRCB-qEQkYx4ZjpYYM12nkEbXGcfUxWwZfvYCccM_sOEOIWE014GgQ6WroHnDVMlLDAGd0WbXzJnhl0kV499Ev288Ptj5tPxd3Xj59v3t8VSjYyFY1qeKWoaWsz7HlXDl2uWqDUojRVOxjNUZuyMcMg97XJFKJusFMGlcYS5SV7e_Zdgv-95hf6yUZFzuFMfo29qGRTN1LuRZZen6Uq-BgDmX4J-amw9YL3p2z6czb9YzZ5482D-TpMpP_rH8OQfwFLOZFR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1436563391</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>van der Paardt, Marije P ; Zagers, Marjolein B ; Beets-Tan, Regina G H ; Stoker, Jaap ; Bipat, Shandra</creator><creatorcontrib>van der Paardt, Marije P ; Zagers, Marjolein B ; Beets-Tan, Regina G H ; Stoker, Jaap ; Bipat, Shandra</creatorcontrib><description>To obtain performance values of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment regarding tumor staging, nodal staging, and tumor-free circumferential resection margins (CRMs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies regarding restaging compared with a reference standard by using the terms rectal neoplasms, MR imaging, and chemotherapy. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used, and data on imaging criteria, histopathologic criteria, and restaging were extracted. Responders were defined as positives and nonresponders, as negatives. Mean sensitivity, mean specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined by using a bivariate random-effects model. A positive LR greater than 5 implied moderate results for responders. Thirty-three studies evaluated 1556 patients. For tumor stage, mean sensitivity was 50.4%, mean specificity was 91.2%, positive LR was 5.76, and negative LR was 0.54. Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging showed comparable positive LR with significantly improved sensitivity (P = .01) and negative LR (P = .04). Experienced observers showed higher sensitivity (P = .01) and lower negative LR (P = .03) compared with less experienced observers. For CRM, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.3%, 85.9%, 5.40, and 0.28, respectively. For nodal stage per patient, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.5%, 59.8%, 1.90, and 0.39, respectively; and for nodal stage on a lesion basis, these values were 90.7%, 73.0%, 3.37, and 0.13, respectively. MR imaging showed heterogeneous results of diagnostic performances for restaging rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment, but significantly better results were demonstrated when DW imaging was used or with experienced observers. MR imaging can also be used for evaluation of CRM staging, but nodal staging remains challenging.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-8419</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122833</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23801777</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Chemoradiotherapy - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Neoplasm Staging ; Preoperative Care - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Prevalence ; Prognosis ; Rectal Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Rectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Rectal Neoplasms - therapy ; Reproducibility of Results ; Risk Assessment ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Radiology, 2013-10, Vol.269 (1), p.101-112</ispartof><rights>RSNA, 2013.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-6c604ce675fb9082b882b51a3d12f47bfd0adf26fbb395ff47aad6a8cfacda2a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-6c604ce675fb9082b882b51a3d12f47bfd0adf26fbb395ff47aad6a8cfacda2a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23801777$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van der Paardt, Marije P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zagers, Marjolein B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beets-Tan, Regina G H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoker, Jaap</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bipat, Shandra</creatorcontrib><title>Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Radiology</title><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><description>To obtain performance values of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment regarding tumor staging, nodal staging, and tumor-free circumferential resection margins (CRMs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies regarding restaging compared with a reference standard by using the terms rectal neoplasms, MR imaging, and chemotherapy. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used, and data on imaging criteria, histopathologic criteria, and restaging were extracted. Responders were defined as positives and nonresponders, as negatives. Mean sensitivity, mean specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined by using a bivariate random-effects model. A positive LR greater than 5 implied moderate results for responders. Thirty-three studies evaluated 1556 patients. For tumor stage, mean sensitivity was 50.4%, mean specificity was 91.2%, positive LR was 5.76, and negative LR was 0.54. Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging showed comparable positive LR with significantly improved sensitivity (P = .01) and negative LR (P = .04). Experienced observers showed higher sensitivity (P = .01) and lower negative LR (P = .03) compared with less experienced observers. For CRM, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.3%, 85.9%, 5.40, and 0.28, respectively. For nodal stage per patient, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.5%, 59.8%, 1.90, and 0.39, respectively; and for nodal stage on a lesion basis, these values were 90.7%, 73.0%, 3.37, and 0.13, respectively. MR imaging showed heterogeneous results of diagnostic performances for restaging rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment, but significantly better results were demonstrated when DW imaging was used or with experienced observers. MR imaging can also be used for evaluation of CRM staging, but nodal staging remains challenging.</description><subject>Chemoradiotherapy - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Preoperative Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0033-8419</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9UU1v1DAQtRCILoUzNzRHLmntOF_LDVXlQyoCIThHE3ucNXLiYDtb5QfxP_GyLYfR6L1580ajx9hrwa-EqLrrgNp6dyWkKMtOyidsJ-qyLTKun7Id51IWXSX2F-xFjL84F1Xdtc_ZRSk7Ltq23bE_3zBZmlOE-4OHddYURg9LIL9QyKMjgTrQ5P8dSofMLRsYH8B5hc5tgPqIsyINgVRCB-qEQkYx4ZjpYYM12nkEbXGcfUxWwZfvYCccM_sOEOIWE014GgQ6WroHnDVMlLDAGd0WbXzJnhl0kV499Ev288Ptj5tPxd3Xj59v3t8VSjYyFY1qeKWoaWsz7HlXDl2uWqDUojRVOxjNUZuyMcMg97XJFKJusFMGlcYS5SV7e_Zdgv-95hf6yUZFzuFMfo29qGRTN1LuRZZen6Uq-BgDmX4J-amw9YL3p2z6czb9YzZ5482D-TpMpP_rH8OQfwFLOZFR</recordid><startdate>201310</startdate><enddate>201310</enddate><creator>van der Paardt, Marije P</creator><creator>Zagers, Marjolein B</creator><creator>Beets-Tan, Regina G H</creator><creator>Stoker, Jaap</creator><creator>Bipat, Shandra</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201310</creationdate><title>Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>van der Paardt, Marije P ; Zagers, Marjolein B ; Beets-Tan, Regina G H ; Stoker, Jaap ; Bipat, Shandra</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-6c604ce675fb9082b882b51a3d12f47bfd0adf26fbb395ff47aad6a8cfacda2a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Chemoradiotherapy - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Preoperative Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van der Paardt, Marije P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zagers, Marjolein B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beets-Tan, Regina G H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoker, Jaap</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bipat, Shandra</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van der Paardt, Marije P</au><au>Zagers, Marjolein B</au><au>Beets-Tan, Regina G H</au><au>Stoker, Jaap</au><au>Bipat, Shandra</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><date>2013-10</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>269</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>101</spage><epage>112</epage><pages>101-112</pages><issn>0033-8419</issn><eissn>1527-1315</eissn><abstract>To obtain performance values of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment regarding tumor staging, nodal staging, and tumor-free circumferential resection margins (CRMs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies regarding restaging compared with a reference standard by using the terms rectal neoplasms, MR imaging, and chemotherapy. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used, and data on imaging criteria, histopathologic criteria, and restaging were extracted. Responders were defined as positives and nonresponders, as negatives. Mean sensitivity, mean specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined by using a bivariate random-effects model. A positive LR greater than 5 implied moderate results for responders. Thirty-three studies evaluated 1556 patients. For tumor stage, mean sensitivity was 50.4%, mean specificity was 91.2%, positive LR was 5.76, and negative LR was 0.54. Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging showed comparable positive LR with significantly improved sensitivity (P = .01) and negative LR (P = .04). Experienced observers showed higher sensitivity (P = .01) and lower negative LR (P = .03) compared with less experienced observers. For CRM, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.3%, 85.9%, 5.40, and 0.28, respectively. For nodal stage per patient, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.5%, 59.8%, 1.90, and 0.39, respectively; and for nodal stage on a lesion basis, these values were 90.7%, 73.0%, 3.37, and 0.13, respectively. MR imaging showed heterogeneous results of diagnostic performances for restaging rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment, but significantly better results were demonstrated when DW imaging was used or with experienced observers. MR imaging can also be used for evaluation of CRM staging, but nodal staging remains challenging.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>23801777</pmid><doi>10.1148/radiol.13122833</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0033-8419
ispartof Radiology, 2013-10, Vol.269 (1), p.101-112
issn 0033-8419
1527-1315
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1436563391
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Chemoradiotherapy - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics & numerical data
Neoplasm Staging
Preoperative Care - statistics & numerical data
Prevalence
Prognosis
Rectal Neoplasms - epidemiology
Rectal Neoplasms - pathology
Rectal Neoplasms - therapy
Reproducibility of Results
Risk Assessment
Sensitivity and Specificity
Treatment Outcome
title Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T22%3A00%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patients%20who%20undergo%20preoperative%20chemoradiotherapy%20for%20locally%20advanced%20rectal%20cancer%20restaged%20by%20using%20diagnostic%20MR%20imaging:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Radiology&rft.au=van%20der%20Paardt,%20Marije%20P&rft.date=2013-10&rft.volume=269&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=101&rft.epage=112&rft.pages=101-112&rft.issn=0033-8419&rft.eissn=1527-1315&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148/radiol.13122833&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1436563391%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1436563391&rft_id=info:pmid/23801777&rfr_iscdi=true