Dataset Information

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:

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 (AUC_hSROC) 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 AUC_hSROC 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 AUC_hSROC 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.

SUBMITTER: Luglio G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8775222 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the current era of multi-disciplinary treatment, precise and detailed diagnosis prior to treatment is crucial for clinical practice. For different lesions that fit different indications, the optimum approach for treatment differs significantly. Thus, the recent 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer classification system has introduced 'clinical stage' as a criterion. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been the first-line choice for pretreatment staging; however, there is no standardization of the depth classification nor a standard EUS method. Additionally, the accuracy for this diagnostic test has ranged between <40 and 90% in previous studies. The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of EUS, identify the discrepancies between EUS and histological results, and analyze the underlying causes. Between June 2014 and February 2016, EUS was performed on gastric carcinoma specimens from 60 consecutive patients. EUS was performed on the resected specimens following surgery, but prior to fixation in formalin, invasion of the gastric wall was determined and the deepest location was marked with sutures. The ultrasound images were independently interpreted, and the quality of the images was scored by two endoscopists. Subsequently, the ultrasound images were compared with the pathological results of the same section. The overall accuracy of EUS was 75%. For locally advanced gastric cancers, EUS had a relatively high accuracy (33/43, 86%). The EUS results corresponded well with the pathological hematoxylin and eosin staining results, and the deepest points determined by EUS were confirmed by pathology in the majority of cases (85%). In total, 50 and 10 cases were scored as having high/moderate and low quality, associated with accuracies of 86% (43/50) and 20% (2/10), respectively. EUS is valuable for pretreatment T-staging, particularly for advanced cases. Proximal stomach cancer exhibited a tendency for improved accuracy. Overall, the results of the present study suggest that standardized scanning processes, particularly including all-encompassing scanning, proper probe-placement and high image quality, lead to improved accuracy of EUS.

Project description:BackgroundThe gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) stimulation test is the benchmark for diagnosing precocious puberty (PP). However, it is invasive, time-consuming, costly, and may create an unpleasant experience for participants. Moreover, some overlaps may occur between PP and premature thelarche (PT) in the early stage of PP. Female pelvic ultrasonography may provide additional information to help differentiate PP from PT and subsequently initiate early treatment. In this study, we aimed to first directly compare pelvic ultrasonography parameters between PP and PT groups and secondly, investigate their diagnostic accuracy compared with the GnRH stimulation test.MethodsA systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed up to March 31, 2021. All types of studies, except for case reports and review articles, were included. The GnRH stimulation test was used to confirm PP diagnosis. Those whose organic conditions might cause PP were excluded. The mean, standard deviation, sensitivity, and specificity of each parameter were documented. Forest plots were constructed to display the estimated standardized mean differences (SMDs) from each included study and the overall calculations. A bivariate model was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).ResultsA total of 13 studies were included for analysis. The SMDs (95% confidence interval - CI) in ovarian volume, fundal-cervical ratio, uterine length, uterine cross-sectional area, and uterine volume between PP and PT groups were 1.12 (0.78-1.45; p < 0.01), 0.90 (0.07-1.73; p = 0.03), 1.38 (0.99-1.78; p < 0.01), 1.06 (0.61-1.50; p < 0.01), and 1.21 (0.84-1.58; p <0.01), respectively. A uterine length of 3.20 cm yielded a pooled sensitivity of 81.8% (95% CI 78.3%-84.9%), specificity of 82.0% (95% CI 61.0%-93.0%), PLR of 4.56 (95% CI 2.15-9.69), NLR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.17-0.39), and DOR of 19.62 (95% CI 6.45-59.68). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.82.ConclusionFemale pelvic ultrasonography may serve as a complementary tool to the GnRH stimulation test in differentiating PP from PT.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021232427, ID: CRD42021232427.

Project description:PurposeProton beam radiotherapy (PBT) has been used for the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer with low rates of high-grade toxicity and excellent patient-reported quality-of-life metrics. Technological advances such as pencil beam scanning (PBS), Monte Carlo dose calculations, and polyethylene glycol gel rectal spacers have optimized prostate proton therapy. Here, we report the early clinical outcomes of patients treated for localized prostate cancer using modern PBS-PBT with hydrogel rectal spacing and fiducial tracking without the use of endorectal balloons.Materials and methodsThis is a single institutional review of consecutive patients treated with histologically confirmed localized prostate cancer. Prior to treatment, all patients underwent placement of fiducials into the prostate and insertion of a hydrogel rectal spacer. Patients were typically given a prescription dose of 7920 cGy at 180 cGy per fraction using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. Acute and late toxicity were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5. Biochemical failure was defined using the Phoenix definition.ResultsFrom July 2018 to April 2020, 33 patients were treated (median age, 75 years). No severe acute toxicities were observed. The most common acute toxicity was urinary frequency. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there were no high-grade genitourinary late toxicities; however, one grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was observed. Late erectile dysfunction was common. One treatment failure was observed at 21 months in a patient treated for high-risk prostate cancer.ConclusionEarly clinical outcomes of patients treated with PBS-PBT using Monte Carlo-based planning, fiducial placement, and rectal spacers sans endorectal balloons demonstrate minimal treatment-related toxicity with good oncologic outcomes. Rectal spacer stabilization without the use of endorectal balloons is feasible for the use of PBS-PBT.