How Can We Identify Tumour Penetration?

Chapter

Abstract

Tumour penetration is seen as the depth of invasion through the layers of the bowel wall and into the surrounding mesorectum. It is an important component of the staging system during assessment of rectal cancer. Historically, the Duke’s staging system has been used to risk-stratify patients and influence treatment decisions. In addition to tumour depth, it includes assessment of local lymph node infiltration. In recent years with increasing use of oncological therapy to accompany surgical treatment of rectal cancer, traditional staging systems have been found lacking in detail. The UICC TNM classification has largely replaced the Duke’s staging system, although many pathologists still report both. Stage at presentation strongly influences prognosis and in particular tumour depth. The risk of recurrence for stage T1, T2 and T3 independent of lymph node involvement is 5%, 10% and 25%, respectively [1]. As the trend has shifted away from adjuvant therapy to neoadjuvant therapy due to improved outcomes and less morbidity, staging information on the tumour is ideally needed at an early stage in the diagnosis. Accurate tumour stage is important in determining the appropriateness of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), which has been shown to improve overall outcomes in more advanced tumours. Sufficient detail cannot be obtained from biopsies alone.

Keywords

Rectal Cancer Circumferential Resection Margin Tumour Depth Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Mesorectal Fascia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind C, International Union against Cancer (1997) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, p xxiii, 227 pGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sauer R et al (2004) Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351(17):1731–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown G et al (1999) Rectal carcinoma: thin-section MR imaging for staging in 28 patients. Radiology 211(1):215–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown G et al (2003) Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in rectal cancer using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Surg 90(3):355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jass JR, Love SB, Northover JM (1987) A new prognostic classification of rectal cancer. Lancet 1(8545):1303–1306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cawthorn SJ et al (1990) Extent of mesorectal spread and involvement of lateral resection margin as prognostic factors after surgery for rectal cancer. Lancet 335(8697):1055–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merkel S et al (2001) The prognostic inhomogeneity in pT3 rectal carcinomas. Int J Colorectal Dis 16(5):298–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beets-Tan RG et al (2001) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of tumour-free resection margin in rectal cancer surgery. Lancet 357(9255):497–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor FG et al (2011) One millimetre is the safe cut-off for magnetic resonance imaging prediction of surgical margin status in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 98(6):872–879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colorectal Research Fellow and Registrar in Colorectal SurgeryRoyal Marsden HospitalSuttonUK
  2. 2.Consultant RadiologistRoyal Marsden HospitalSuttonUK

Personalised recommendations