Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation of rectal tumor volumes with oncological outcomes for low rectal cancers: does tumor size matter?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purposes

Several reports have described a relationship between tumor volume and oncological outcomes for certain cancers. There is paucity of similar data for rectal cancer. We conducted this study to establish whether tumor volume, mesorectal volume, and the tumor volume to mesorectal volume ratio (TV/MRV), evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), affect the oncological outcomes of patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

We performed volumetric analysis of rectal tumors from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images and assessed their correlation with oncological outcomes, using clinical and radiological databases.

Results

The subjects of this study were 25 of 35 patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery after staging with MRI, after the exclusion of 7 patients for whom MRI images could not be retrieved and 3 patients who had metastases identified at diagnosis. Tumor volume (TV) was a significant predictor of overall survival hazard ratio (95 % CI); 5.8 (1.2–29), (P = 0.03). Mesorectal volume (MRV) and TV/MRV did not correlate with oncological outcomes.

Conclusions

We found a direct relationship between tumor volume and overall survival, which may be used to stratify rectal tumors for neoadjuvant therapy. A larger prospective study is required to confirm this correlation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander BM, Othus M, Caglar HB, Allen AM. Tumor volume is a prognostic factor in non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(5):1381–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pamir MN, Belirgen M, Ozduman K, Kilic T, Ozek M. Anterior clinoidal meningiomas: analysis of 43 consecutive surgically treated cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008;150(7):625–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee CC, Chu ST, Ho HC, Hung SK. Primary tumor volume calculation as a predictive factor of prognosis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Acta Otolaryngol. 2008;128(1):93–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen MK, Lee HS, Chang CC. Primary tumour volume: important predictor of outcome for T3- and T4-staged nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Otolaryngol. 2004;33(4):254–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Crispen PL, Boorjian SA, Lohse CM, Sebo TS, Cheville JC, Blute ML, et al. Outcomes following partial nephrectomy by tumor size. J Urol. 2008;180(5):1912–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim SJ, Lee KK, Kim DG. Tumor size predicts the biological behavior and influence of operative modalities in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology. 2010;57(97):121–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott KW, Grace RH. The relationship between tumour volume and the extent of spread in colorectal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1994;9(4):203–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Torkzad MR, Blomqvist L. The mesorectum: morphometric assessment with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(6):1184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim YH, Kim DY, Kim TH. Usefulness of magnetic resonance volumetric evaluation in predicting response to preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62(3):761–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet. 1986;2(8514):996–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, Finan PJ, Johnston D, Mohamdee MO, et al. Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet. 1994;344(8924):707–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ng IO, Luk IS, Yuen ST, Lau PWK, Pritchett CJ, Ng M, et al. Surgical lateral clearance in resected rectal carcinomas. A multivariate analysis of clinicopathologic features. Cancer. 1993;71(6):1972–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Haas-Kock DF, Baeten CG, Jager JJ, Langendijk JA, Schouten LJ, Volovics A, et al. Prognostic significance of radial margins of clearance in rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1996;83(6):781–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2002;235(4):449–57.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, van de Velde CJ, van Krieken JH. Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(3):350–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bokey EL, Chapuis PH, Dent OF, Newland RC, Koorey SG, Zelas PJ, et al. Factors affecting survival after excision of the rectum for cancer: a multivariate analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(1):3–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Horn A, Dahl O, Morild I. Venous and neural invasion as predictors of recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34(9):798–804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harrison JC, Dean PJ, el-Zeky F, Vander Zwaag R. From Dukes through Jass: pathological prognostic indicators in rectal cancer. Hum Pathol. 1994;25(5):498–505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mathis KL, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Cima RR, Huebner M, Haddock MG, et al. Outcomes following surgery without radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2012;99(1):137–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim YJ, Park SC, Kim DY, Moon SH, Chang HJ, Park JW, et al. No correlation between pretreatment serum CEA levels and tumor volume in locally advanced rectal cancer patients. Clin Chim Acta. 2012;413(3–4):511–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Poritz LS, Sehgal R, Hartnett K, Berg A, Koltun WA. Tumor volume and percent positive lymph nodes as a predictor of 5-year survival in colorectal cancer. Surgery. 2011;150(4):649–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Torkzad MR, Hansson KA, Lindholm J, Martling A, Blomqvist L. Significance of mesorectal volume in staging of rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging and the assessment of involvement of the mesorectal fascia. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(7):1694–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gwynne S, Mukherjee S, Webster R, Spezi E, Staffurth J, Coles B, et al. Imaging for target volume delineation in rectal cancer radiotherapy–a systematic review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24(1):52–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Marincas M, Cirimbei C, Prunoiu V, Eliescu AL, Buzatu R, Stefan I, et al. Postradiotherapy regression–a prognostic factor in rectal neoplasm. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2011;106(6):753–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nougaret S, Rouanet P, Molinari N, Pierredon MA, Bibeau F, Azria D, et al. MR volumetric measurement of low rectal cancer helps predict tumor response and outcome after combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology. 2012;263(2):409–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yeo SG, Kim DY, Park JW, Oh JH, Kim SY, Chang HJ, et al. Tumor volume reduction rate after preoperative chemoradiotherapy as a prognostic factor in locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(2):e193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

M Tayyab and his co-authors have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Surgical Unit, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, HU16 5JQ, UK

    Muhammad Tayyab, Abhiram Sharma, James Gunn & John E. Hartley

  2. Department of Radiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, HU16 5JQ, UK

    Abdul Razack

  3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital of South Manchester and the University of Manchester, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK

    Abhiram Sharma

Authors
  1. Muhammad Tayyab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdul Razack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abhiram Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James Gunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John E. Hartley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhiram Sharma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tayyab, M., Razack, A., Sharma, A. et al. Correlation of rectal tumor volumes with oncological outcomes for low rectal cancers: does tumor size matter?. Surg Today 45, 826–833 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-014-1068-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-014-1068-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation