Endorectal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Show Similar Diagnostic Accuracy in Local Staging of Rectal Cancer: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Study Selection
2.3. Data Extraction, Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment
2.4. Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Study Characteristics
3.3. T Staging, ERUS vs. MRI
3.4. N Staging, ERUS vs. MRI
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peltrini, R.; Luglio, G.; Cassese, G.; Amendola, A.; Caruso, E.; Sacco, M.; Pagano, G.; Sollazzo, V.; Tufano, A.; Giglio, M.C.; et al. Oncological outcomes and quality of life after rectal cancer surgery. Open Med. 2019, 14, 653–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Sukhni, E.; Attwood, K.; Gabriel, E.; Nurkin, S.J. Predictors of circumferential resection margin involvement in surgically resected rectal cancer: A retrospective review of 23,464 patients in the US National Cancer Database. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 28, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Palma, G.D.; Maione, F.; Esposito, D.; Luglio, G.; Giglio, M.C.; Siciliano, S.; Gennarelli, N.; Cassese, G.; Campione, S.; D’Armiento, F.P.; et al. In vivo assessment of tumour angiogenesis in colorectal cancer: The role of confocal laser endomicroscopy. Color. Dis. 2016, 18, O66–O73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassese, G.; Amendola, A.; Maione, F.; Giglio, M.C.; Pagano, G.; Milone, M.; Aprea, G.; Luglio, G.; De Palma, G.D. Serrated lesions of the colon-rectum: A focus on new diagnostic tools and current management. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sacco, M.; De Palma, F.D.E.; Guadagno, E.; Giglio, M.C.; Peltrini, R.; Marra, E.; Manfreda, A.; Amendola, A.; Cassese, G.; Dinuzzi, V.P.; et al. Serrated lesions of the colon and rectum: Emergent epidemiological data and molecular pathways. Open Med. 2020, 15, 1087–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Palma, F.D.E.; Luglio, G.; Tropeano, F.P.; Pagano, G.; D’Armiento, M.; Kroemer, G.; Maiuri, M.C.; De Palma, G.D. The role of micro-RNAs and circulating tumor markers as predictors of response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beets-Tan, R.G.; Lambregts, D.M.; Maas, M.; Bipat, S.; Barbaro, B.; Curvo-Semedo, L.; Fenlon, H.M.; Gollub, M.J.; Gourtsoyianni, S.; Halligan, S.; et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur. Radiol. 2018, 28, 1465–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tudyka, V.; Blomqvist, L.; Beets-Tan, R.G.H.; Boelens, P.G.; Valentini, V.; Van De Velde, C.J.; Dieguez, A.; Brown, G. EURECCA consensus conference highlights about colon & rectal cancer multidisciplinary management: The radiology experts review. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 40, 469–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bipat, S.; Glas, A.S.; Slors, F.J.M.; Zwinderman, A.H.; Bossuyt, P.M.M.; Stoker, J. Rectal cancer: Local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—A meta-analysis. Radiology 2004, 232, 773–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kwok, H.; Bissett, I.P.; Hill, G.L. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Int. J. Colorectal. Dis. 2000, 15, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whiting, P.F.; Rutjes, A.W.; Westwood, M.E.; Mallett, S.; Deeks, J.J.; Reitsma, J.B.; Leeflang, M.M.; Sterne, J.A.; Bossuyt, P.M. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reitsma, J.B.; Glas, A.S.; Rutjes, A.W.S.; Scholten, R.J.P.M.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Zwinderman, A.H. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005, 58, 982–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutter, C.M.; Gatsonis, C.A. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat. Med. 2001, 20, 2865–2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meyenberger, C.; Huch Böni, R.A.; Bertschinger, P.; Zala, G.F.; Klotz, H.P.; Krestin, G.P. Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Prospective, Comparative Study for Preoperative Staging and Follow-Up of Rectal Cancer. Endoscopy 1995, 27, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zagoria, R.J.; Schlarb, C.A.; Ott, D.J.; Bechtold, R.E.; Wolfman, N.T.; Scharling, E.S.; Chen, M.Y.; Loggie, B.W. Assessment of rectal tumor infiltration utilizing endorectal MR imaging and comparison with endoscopic rectal sonography. J. Surg. Oncol. 1997, 64, 312–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, P.P.; Ceriani, C.; Rottoli, M.; Torzilli, G.; Pompili, G.; Malesci, A.; Ferraroni, M.; Montorsi, M. Endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance in preoperative staging of rectal cancer: Comparison with histologic findings. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2005, 9, 1222–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maldjian, C.; Smith, R.; Kilger, A.; Schnall, M.; Ginsberg, G.; Kochman, M. Endorectal surface coil MR imaging as a staging technique for rectal carcinoma: A comparison study to rectal endosonography. Abdom. Imaging 2000, 25, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Esparrach, G.; Ayuso-Colella, J.R.; Sendino, O.; Pagés, M.; Cuatrecasas, M.; Pellisé, M.; Maurel, J.; Ayuso-Colella, C.; González-Suárez, B.; Llach, J.; et al. EUS and magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of rectal cancer: A prospective and comparative study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011, 74, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kocaman, O.; Baysal, B.; Senturk, H.; Ince, A.L.İ.; Muslumanoglu, M.; Kocakoç, E.; Arici, S.; Uysal, O.; Yildiz, K.; Turkdogan, K.; et al. Staging of rectal carcinoma: MDCT, MRI or EUS. Single center experience. Turk. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 25, 669–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reginelli, A.; Clemente, A.; Sangiovanni, A.; Nardone, V.; Selvaggi, F.; Sciaudone, G.; Ciardiello, F.; Martinelli, E.; Grassi, R.; Cappabianca, S. Endorectal Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Rectal Cancer Staging: A Modern Multimodality Approach. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, D.A.; Shergill, A.K.; Early, D.S.; Acosta, R.D.; Chandrasekhara, V.; Chathadi, K.V.; Decker, G.A.; Evans, J.A.; Fanelli, R.D.; Foley, K.Q.; et al. Role of endoscopy in the staging and management of colorectal cancer. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013, 78, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Glynne-Jones, R.; Wyrwicz, L.; Tiret, E.; Brown, G.; Rödel, C.; Cervantes, A.; Arnold, D. Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2017, 28, iv22–iv40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, G. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: Prospective observational study. Br. Med. J. 2006, 333, 779–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, F.G.; Quirke, P.; Heald, R.J.; Moran, B.J.; Blomqvist, L.; Swift, I.R.; Sebag-Montefiore, D.; Tekkis, P.; Brown, G. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-Year follow-up results of the MERCURY Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MERCURY Study Group. Extramural depth of tumor invasion at thin-section MR in patients with rectal cancer: Results of the MERCURY study. Radiology 2007, 243, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Aguilar, J.; Pollack, J.; Lee, S.H.; De Anda, E.H.; Mellgren, A.; Wong, W.D.; Finne, C.O.; Rothenberger, D.A.; Madoff, R.D. Accuracy of endorectal ultrasonography in preoperative staging of rectal tumors. Dis. Colon Rectum 2002, 45, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, B.P.H.; Patel, R.; Mbuagbaw, L.; Thabane, L.; Yaghoobi, M. EUS versus magnetic resonance imaging in staging rectal adenocarcinoma: A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2019, 90, 196–203.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willett, C.G.; Compton, C.C.; Shellito, P.C.; Efird, J.T. Selection factors for local excision or abdominoperineal resection of early stage rectal cancer. Cancer 1994, 73, 2716–2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klessen, C.; Rogalla, P.; Taupitz, M. Local staging of rectal cancer: The current role of MRI. Eur. Radiol. 2007, 17, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Balyasnikova, S.; Brown, G. Optimal Imaging Strategies for Rectal Cancer Staging and Ongoing Management. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2016, 17, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Xie, H.; Zhou, X.; Zhuo, Z.; Che, S.; Xie, L.; Fu, W. Effectiveness of MRI for the assessment of mesorectal fascia involvement in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig. Surg. 2014, 31, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heald, R.J. The “Holy Plane” of rectal surgery. J. R. Soc. Med. 1988, 81, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Davies, S.; Williams, G.T.; Bourne, M.W.; Newcombe, R.G.; Radcliffe, A.G.; Blethyn, J.; Dallimore, N.S.; Rees, B.I.; Phillips, C.J.; et al. Effectiveness of preoperative staging in rectal cancer: Digital rectal examination, endoluminal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging? Br. J. Cancer 2004, 91, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Authors | Year | N. of Patients | Design | MRI | ERUS | Reference Standard |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Meyenberger et al. [16] | 1995 | 21 | Prospective | 1.5 T endorectal coil | Radial 7.5 MHz | Histopathology |
Zagoria et al. [17] | 1997 | 10 | Prospective | 1.5 T endorectal coil | Radial 7.5 MHz | Histopathology |
Maldjian et al. [19] | 2000 | 14 | Prospective | 1.5 T endorectal coil and body coil | Radial 7.5 MHz or 12 MHz | Histopathology |
Bianchi et al. [18] | 2005 | 49 | Prospective | 1 T body coil | 7.5 MHz | Histopathology |
Fernández-Esparrach et al. [20] | 2011 | 90 | Prospective | 1.5 T or 3 T | Radial | Histopathology |
Kocaman et al. [21] | 2014 | 50 | Retrospective | 1.5 T phased array coil | Radial 7.5 MHz or 10 MHz | Histopathology |
Reginelli et al. [22] | 2021 | 97 | Retrospective | 1.5 T phased array coil | 10–13 MHz | Histopathology |
Sensitivity [95% C.I.] | Specificity [95% C.I.] | Positive LR [95% C.I.] | Negative LR [95% C.I.] | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ERUS T | 0.82 [0.72, 0.89] | 0.91 [0.77, 0.96] | 8.8 [3.2, 24.0] | 0.19 [0.11, 0.34] |
MRI T | 0.69 [0.55, 0.81] | 0.88 [0.79, 0.93] | 5.6 [2.7, 11.6] | 0.35 [0.21, 0.57] |
ERUS N | 0.83 [0.45, 0.96] | 0.88 [0.73, 0.95] | 6.7 [2.3, 19.9] | 0.20 [0.04, 0.91] |
MRI N | 0.82 [0.64, 0.92] | 0.89 [0.79, 0.95] | 7.5 [3.5, 16.5] | 0.20 [0.09, 0.45] |
ERUS T1 | 0.78 [0.55, 0.91] | 0.96 [0.88, 0.99] | 19.4 [5.8, 64.7] | 0.23 [0.10, 0.53] |
MRI T1 | 0.47 [0.10, 0.87] | 0.98 [0.94, 1.00] | 27.6 [7.3, 104.7] | 0.54 [0.21, 1.39] |
ERUS T2 | 0.70 [0.51, 0.84] | 0.92 [0.83, 0.97] | 9.4 [3.3, 26.6] | 0.32 [0.17, 0.60] |
MRI T2 | 0.61 [0.39, 0.79] | 0.86 [0.63, 0.96] | 4.3 [1.1, 16.5] | 0.46 [0.23, 0.89] |
ERUS T3 | 0.92 [0.83, 0.97] | 0.79 [0.64, 0.89] | 4.4 [2.4, 8.1] | 0.10 [0.04, 0.25] |
MRI T3 | 0.81 [0.60, 0.92] | 0.77 [0.67, 0.85] | 3.5 [2.1, 5.9] | 0.25 [0.10, 0.61] |
ERUS T4 | 0.62 [0.25, 0.88] | 0.98 [0.95, 0.99] | 35.0 [11.3, 108.6] | 0.39 [0.15, 1.02] |
MRI T4 | 0.75 [0.37, 0.94] | 0.95 [0.90, 0.97] | 14.3 [6.0, 34.2] | 0.26 [0.07, 0.91] |
Area under ROC Curve [95% C.I.] | p-Value | |
---|---|---|
ERUS T | 0.91 [0.89–0.93] | 0.409 |
MRI T | 0.87 [0.84–0.89] | |
ERUS N | 0.92 [0.89–0.94] | 0.389 |
MRI N | 0.93 [0.90–0.95] | |
ERUS T1 | 0.88 [0.85–0.91] | 0.750 |
MRI T1 | 0.98 [0.96–0.99] | |
ERUS T2 | 0.90 [0.88–0.93] | 0.541 |
MRI T2 | 0.78 [0.75–0.82] | |
ERUS T3 | 0.93 [0.91–0.95] | 0.400 |
MRI T3 | 0.83 [0.79–0.86] | |
ERUS T4 | 0.98 [0.97–0.99] | 0.161 |
MRI T4 | 0.96 [0.93–0.97] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Luglio, G.; Pagano, G.; Tropeano, F.P.; Spina, E.; Maione, R.; Chini, A.; Maione, F.; Galloro, G.; Giglio, M.C.; De Palma, G.D. Endorectal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Show Similar Diagnostic Accuracy in Local Staging of Rectal Cancer: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010005
Luglio G, Pagano G, Tropeano FP, Spina E, Maione R, Chini A, Maione F, Galloro G, Giglio MC, De Palma GD. Endorectal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Show Similar Diagnostic Accuracy in Local Staging of Rectal Cancer: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010005
Chicago/Turabian StyleLuglio, Gaetano, Gianluca Pagano, Francesca Paola Tropeano, Eduardo Spina, Rosa Maione, Alessia Chini, Francesco Maione, Giuseppe Galloro, Mariano Cesare Giglio, and Giovanni Domenico De Palma. 2022. "Endorectal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Show Similar Diagnostic Accuracy in Local Staging of Rectal Cancer: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Diagnostics 12, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010005
APA StyleLuglio, G., Pagano, G., Tropeano, F. P., Spina, E., Maione, R., Chini, A., Maione, F., Galloro, G., Giglio, M. C., & De Palma, G. D. (2022). Endorectal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Show Similar Diagnostic Accuracy in Local Staging of Rectal Cancer: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics, 12(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010005