Abstract
115 colorectal carcinomas were measured in three dimensions. To compare the tumour volume, greatest linear dimension and the maximum thickness of colorectal carcinomas with the extent of spread. A formula was devised for estimating tumour volume based on the oval shape of most carcinomas. Dukes staging was performed after xylene/alcohol fat clearance. The mean tumour volume of Dukes B tumours was greater than that of A tumours. mean volume of C tumours was greater than that of A tumours. The mean volume of Dukes B tumours was greater than that of C tumours. The greatest linear dimension and the tumour thickness measurements also showed differences but were not as discriminating as the tumour volume. Using the Astler and Coller modification of Dukes staging, the mean tumour volume of C2 tumours was significantly greater than that of C1 tumours. Both C1 and C2 tumour volumes when considered separtely were smaller than those of the B tumours. There was a significant positive correlation coefficient between tumour volume and the greatest linear dimension and also between tumour volume and the tumour thickness. There was no significant correlation within the C tumours between tumour volume and the number of lymph nodes with metastatic deposits. Colorectal carcinomas differ from other solid tumours in their growth pattern and metastatic behaviour. There is no direct relationship between increasing tumour size and progression in the Dukes staging. Some tumours appear to metastasize to lymph nodes while still small (C1 tumours); other tumours appear not to metastasize to lymph nodes regardless of size (B tumours). Tumour volume is a more accurate estimation of tumour size than either the single greatest linear dimension or the tumour thickness.
Résumé
Afin de comparer le volume tumoral, la plus grande dimension linéaire et l'épaisseur maximale de cancers colorectaux ont été corrélés avec l'extension tumorale: 115 cancers colorectaux ont fait l'objet de mensurations de ces trois dimensions. Une formule mathématique a été développé pour estimer le volume tumoral en se basant sur la forme ovoïde de la plupart de ces carcinomes. Une détermination de stade de Dukes a été réalisée après traitement des prélèvements par une solution de xylène/alcool. Le volume moyen des tumeurs au stade de Dukes B est supérieur à celui des tumeurs Dukes A. Le volume moyen des tumeurs au stade de Dukes C est plus important que celui des tumeurs au stade de Dukes A. Le volume moyen des tumeurs Dukes B est plus grand que celui des tumeurs Dukes C. Le plus grand diamètre et l'épaisseur tumorale ont montré des différences qui ne sont toutefois pas aussi discriminatoire que le volume tumorale. Utilisant la modification de Astler et Collier de la classification de Dukes, le volume tumoral moyen des tumeurs au stade C2 est significativement plus élevé que celui des tumeurs au stade C1. Lorsqui'ils sont pris séparément, les volumes des tumeurs aux stades C1 et C2 sont plus petits que ceux des tumeurs au stade B. II y a une corrélation positive significative entre le volume tumoral et le plus grand diamètre de la tumeur ainsi qu'entre le volume tumoral et l'épaisseur de la tumeur. II n'y a pas de corrélation significative entre les tumeurs au stade C et le nombre de métastases ganglionnaires accompagenées de métastases hépatiques. Les cancers colorectaux diffèrent des autres tumeurs solides par leur schéma de croissance et leur comportement métastatique. II n'y a pas de relation directe entre la croissance tumorale et l'evolution dans la classification de Dukes. Certaines tumeurs semblent métastatiser vers les ganglions lymphatiques alors même qu'elles sont encore de petite taille (C1); d'autres tumeurs semblent ne pas métastatiser en direction des tumeurs lymphatiques indépendamment de la taille des tumeurs (tumeurs B). Le volume tumoral constitue donc un score bien plus précis pour estimer la taille de la tumeur comparativement aux dimensions linéaires les plus grandes ou à l'épaisseur tumorale.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fisher B, Stack NM, Bross IDJ (1969) Cancer of the breast: size of neoplasm and prognosis. Cancer 24:1071–1080
Rankin RW, Olson PF (1933) The hopeful prognosis in cases of carcinoma of the colon. Surg Gyn Obstet 56:366–374
Spratt JS, Ackerman LV (1960) Relationship of size of colonic tumours to their cellular composition and biological behaviour. Surg Forum 10:56–61
Grinnell RS (1964) The chance of cancer and lymphatic metastasis in small colon tumours discovered on x-ray exmination. Ann Surg 159:132–138
McSherry CK, Connell GN, Glen F (1969) Carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Ann Surg 169:502–512
Olson RM, Perencevich NP, Malcolm AW, Chaffey TJ, Wilson RE (1980) Patterns of recurrence following curative resection of adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Cancer 45:2969–2974
Wolmark N, Cruz I, Redmond CK, Fisher B, Fisher ER (1983) Tumour size and regional lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. Cancer 51:1315–1322
Wolmark N, Fisher ER, Wieand S, Fisher B (1984) The relationship of depth of penetration and tumour size to the number of positive nodes in Dukes C colorectal cancer. Cancer 53:2707–2712
Scott KWM, Grace RH (1989) Detection of lymph node metastases in colorectal carcinoma before and after fat clearance. Br J Surg 76:1165–1167
Astler VA, Coller FA (1954) The prognostic significance of direct extension of carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Ann Surg 139:846–852
Dukes CE, Bussey HJR (1958) The spread of rectal cancer and its effect on prognosis. Br J Cancer 12:309–320
Blenkinsopp WK, Stewart-Brown S, Blesovsky L, Kearney G, Fielding LP (1981) Histopathology reporting in large bowel cancer. J Clin Pathol 34:509–513
McVay RJ (1922) Involvement of the lymph nodes in carcinoma of the rectum. Ann Surg 76:755–767
Lockhart-Mummery JP (1926) Two hundred cases of cancer of the rectum treated by perineal excision. Br J Surg 14:110–124
Dukes CE (1932) The classification of cancer of the rectum. J Pathol Bact 35:323–332
Coller FA, Kay EB, Mcintyre RS (1940) Regional lymphatic metastasis of carcinoma of the rectum. Surgery 8:294–311
Grinnell RS (1950) The Spread of carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Cancer 3:641–652
Spratt JS, Spjut JK (1967) Prevalence and prognosis of individual clinical and pathologic variables associated with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 20:1976–1985
Cohen AM, Wood WC, Gunderson LL, Skinner M (1980) Pathological studies in rectal cancer. Cancer 45:2965–2968
McSherry CK, Cornell GN, Glenn F (1969) Carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Ann Surg 169:502–509
Berardi RS, Siroospour D (1976) Influence of lesion size and location on prognosis in rectal adenocarcinoma. Int Surg 61:139–140
Wiggers T, Arends JW, Schutte B, Volovics L, Bosman TF (1988) A multivariate analysis of pathological prognosis indicators in large bowel cancer. Cancer 61:386–395
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Paper read in part at the Coloproctology Section of the Royal Society of Medicine, Parknasilla, Ireland, June 1993.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, K.W.M., Grace, R.H. The relationship between tumour volume and the extent of spread in colorectal carcinoma. Int J Colorect Dis 9, 203–206 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292251
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292251