Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study of three-dimensional and conventional endorectal ultrasonography used in rectal cancer staging

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Three-dimensional (3D) imaging offers improved knowledge of various anatomic structures and tumors by providing 3D images. This prospective study was performed to verify whether 3D endorectal ultrasonography (EUS) enhances the accuracy of rectal cancer staging, as compared with conventional EUS.

Methods

Using both 3D and conventional EUS, 33 consecutive patients with operable rectal cancer were preoperatively staged. A rigid 3D probe with a scanner was used for 3D EUS, and a rigid endorectal probe with a scanner was used for conventional EUS.

Results

The accuracy of 3D EUS was 90.9% for pT2 and 84.8% for pT3, whereas that of conventional EUS was 84.8% and 75.8%, respectively, thereby showing no difference between these two methods. The lymph node metastasis was accurately predicted by 3D EUS in 28 patients (84.8%), whereas conventional EUS predicted the disorder in 22 patients (66.7%). The difference was not statistically significant. The average infiltration grade of the circumference on transverse 3D EUS scans was associated closely with advancement of the TNM stage (p<0.001–0.006) and lymph node metastasis (p=0.003). The presence of a cone-shaped surface on the deep tumor border correlated with the infiltration grade shown on all of the sectional displays (p<0.001–0.042) and with advancement of the TNM stage (p=0.018).

Conclusions

Although the findings did not show 3D EUS to have a significant advantage over conventional EUS for the accurate evaluation of rectal cancer, a numeric advantage may possibly be statistically significant in a further study with larger cases. Furthermore, stereoscopic visualization provided easier and complete understanding of both focal lesions and lymph nodes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams DR, Blatchford GJ, Lin KM, Ternent CA, Thorson AG, Christensen MA (1999) Use of preoperative ultrasound staging for treatment of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 42: 159–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Beynon J, Mortensen NJ, Foy DM, Channer JL, Virjee J, Goddard P (1986) Preoperative assessment of local invasion in rectal cancer: digital examination, endoluminal sonography, or computed tomography? Br J Surg 73: 1015–1017

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Carmody BJ, Otchy DP (2000) Learning curve of transrectal ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 43: 193–197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Herzog U, von Flüe M, Tondelli P, Schuppisser JP (1993) How accurate is endorectal ultrasound in the preoperative staging of rectal cancer? Dis Colon Rectum 36: 127–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Holdsworth PJ, Johnston D, Charmers AG, Chennells P, Dixon MF, Finan PJ, Primrose JN, Quirke P (1988) Endoluminal ultrasound and computed tomography in the staging of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 75: 1019–1022

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hünerbein M, Below C, Schlag PM (1996) Three-dimensional endorectal ultrasonography for staging of obstructing rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 39: 636–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hünerbein M, Dohmoto M, Haensch W, Schlag PM (1996) Evaluation and biopsy of recurrent rectal cancer using three-dimensional endosonography. Dis Colon Rectum 39: 1373–1378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ivanov KD, Diacov CD (1997) Three-dimensional endoluminal ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 40: 47–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Katsura Y, Yamada K, Ishizawa T, Yoshinaka H, Shimazu H (1992) Endorectal ultrasonography for the assessment of wall invasion and lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 35: 362–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim JC, Yu CS, Chung HY, Hwoon YJ, Kim HC, Kirn SY, Park SK, Kang KH, Lee MG (2001) Source of errors in the evaluation of early rectal cancer by endoluminal ultrasonography (EUS). Dis Colon Rectum 44: 1302–1309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim NK, Kim MJ, Yun SH, Sohn SK, Min JS (1999) Comparative study of transrectal ultrasonography, pelvic computerized tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 42: 770–775

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kruskal JB, Kane RA, Sentovitch SM, Longmaid HE (1997) Pitfalls and sources of error in staging rectal cancer with endorectal US. Radiographics 17: 606–626

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kruskal JB, Sentovitch SM, Kane RA (1999) Staging of rectal cancer after polypectomy: usefulness of endorectal US. Radiology 211: 31–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee P, Oyama K, Homer L, Sullivan E (1999) Effects of endorectal ultrasonography in the surgical management of rectal adenomas and carcinomas. Am J Surg 177: 388–391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lindmark G, Elvin A, Pahlman L, Glimelius B (1992) The value of endosonography in preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Int J Colorect Dis 7: 162–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lupo L, Angelelli G, Pannarale O, Altomare D, Macarini L, Memeo V (1996) Improved accuracy of computed tomography in local staging of rectal cancer using water enema. Int J Colorect Dis 11: 60–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mentges B, Buess G, Schäfer D, Manncke K, Becker HD (1996) Local therapy of rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum 39: 886–889

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Meyenberger C, Huch Boni RA, Bertschinger P, Zala GF, Klotz HP, Krestin GP (1995) Endoscopic ultrasound and endorectal magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective, comparative study for preoperative staging and follow-up of rectal cancer. Endoscopy 27: 469–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sailer M, Leppert R, Bussen D, Fuchs KH, Thiede A (1997) Influence of tumor position on accuracy of endorectal ultrasound staging. Dis Colon Rectum 40: 1180–1186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sentovich SM, Blatchford GJ, Thorson AG, Christensen MA (1993) Transrectal ultrasound of rectal tumors. Am J Surg 166: 638–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS (1993) Endoluminal transrectal ultrasonography: accuracy, reliability, and validity. Dis Colon Rectum 36: 200–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Spinelli P, Schiavo M, Meroni E, Di Felice G, Andreola S, Gallino G, Belli F, Leo E (1999) Results of EUS in detecting perirectal lymph node metastases of rectal cancer: the pathologist makes the difference. Gastrointest Endosc 49: 754–758

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sunouchi K, Sakaguchi M, Higuchi Y, Namiki K, Muto T (1998) Limitation of endorectal ultrasonography: what does a low echoic lesion more than 5 mm in size correspond to histologically? Dis Colon Rectum 41: 761–764

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Thaler W, Watzka S, Martin F, La Guardia G, Psenner K, Bonatti G, Fichtel G, Egarter-Vigl E, Marzoli GP (1994) Preoperative staging of rectal cancer by endoluminal ultrasound vs magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary results of a prospective, comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 37: 1189–1193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wiesauer F (2000) Methodology of three-dimensional ultrasound. In: Kuriak A, Kupesic S (eds) Clinical application of 3D sonography. Parthenon Publishing, New York, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  26. Williamson PR, Hellinger MD, Larach SW, Ferrara A (1996) Endorectal ultrasound of T3 and T4 rectal cancers after preoperative chemoradiation. Dis Colon Rectum 39: 45–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 388-1 Poongnap-Dong, Songpa-Ku, 138-736, Seoul, Korea

    J. C. Kim, Y. K. Cho, S. Y. Kim & S. K. Park

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center, 388-1 Poongnap-Dong, Songpa-Ku, 138-736, Seoul, Korea

    M. G. Lee

Authors
  1. J. C. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y. K. Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Y. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. K. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. G. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Online publication: 7 May 2002

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, J.C., Cho, Y.K., Kim, S.Y. et al. Comparative study of three-dimensional and conventional endorectal ultrasonography used in rectal cancer staging. Surg Endosc 16, 1280–1285 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-8277-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-8277-5

Key words

Search

Navigation