Next Article in Journal
RT-PCR Detection of SARS-CoV-2 among Individuals from the Upper Silesian Region—Analysis of 108,516 Tests
Previous Article in Journal
Oral Candida Infection in Psoriatic Patients Treated with IL17A Inhibitors: Report of 3 Cases and a Comprehensive Review of the Literature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/diagnostics12010005
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Endorectal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Show Similar Diagnostic Accuracy in Local Staging of Rectal Cancer: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Gaetano Luglio
1,
Gianluca Pagano
1,*,
Francesca Paola Tropeano
1,
Eduardo Spina
1,
Rosa Maione
1,
Alessia Chini
1,
Francesco Maione
1,
Giuseppe Galloro
1,
Mariano Cesare Giglio
2 and
Giovanni Domenico De Palma
1
1
Endoscopic Surgery Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Gastrointestinal Disease, Federico II University of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy
2
Division of HPB, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, 80131 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010005
Submission received: 9 November 2021 / Revised: 18 December 2021 / Accepted: 19 December 2021 / Published: 21 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Endorectal Ultrasonography (EUS-ERUS) and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are world-wide performed for the local staging of rectal cancer (RC), but no clear consensus on their indications is present, there being literature in support of both. The aim of this meta-analysis is to give an update regarding the diagnostic test accuracy of ERUS and pelvic MRI about the local staging of RC. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search from November 2020 to October 2021 was performed to select studies in which head-to-head comparison between ERUS and MRI was reported for the local staging of rectal cancer. Quality and risk of bias were assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Our primary outcome was the T staging accuracy of ERUS and MRI for which pooled accuracy indices were calculated using a bivariable random-effects model. In addition, a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (hSROC) was created to characterize the accuracy of ERUS and MRI for the staging of T and N parameters. The area under the hSROC curve (AUChSROC) was determined as a measure of diagnostic accuracy. Results: Seven studies and 331 patients were included in our analysis. ERUS and MRI showed a similar accuracy for the T staging, with AUChSROC curves of 0.91 (95% C.I., 0.89 to 0.93) and 0.87 (95% C.I., 0.84 to 0.89), respectively (p = 0.409). For T staging, ERUS showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% C.I. 0.72 to 0.89) and pooled specificity of 0.91 (95% C.I. 0.77–0.96), while MRI had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.69 (95% C.I. 0.55–0.81) and 0.88 (95% C.I. 0.79–0.93), respectively. ERUS and MRI showed a similar accuracy in the N staging too, with AUChSROC curves of 0.92 (95% C.I., 0.89 to 0.94) and 0.93 (95% C.I., 0.90 to 0.95), respectively (p = 0.389). Conclusions: In conclusion, ERUS and MRI are comparable imaging techniques for the local staging of rectal cancer.
Keywords: rectal cancer; staging; endorectal ultrasonography; pelvic magnetic resonance imaging rectal cancer; staging; endorectal ultrasonography; pelvic magnetic resonance imaging

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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

AMA Style

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 Style

Luglio, 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 Style

Luglio, 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

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop