Singapore medical journal · 2014
Staging of colorectal cancer using contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomographic colonography.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Narayanan Srikala, Kalra Naveen, Bhatia Anmol, Wig Jaidev, Rana Surinder, Bhasin Deepak, Vaiphei Kim, Khandelwal Niranjan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Preoperative staging is essential for the optimal treatment and surgical planning of colorectal cancers. This study was aimed to evaluate the accuracy of colorectal cancer staging done using contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomographic colonography (CEMDCTC).
METHODS: We recruited 25 patients with 28 proven colorectal cancers. A 16-slice multidetector computed tomography scanner was used to generate two-dimensional multiplanar reformatted sagittal, coronal and oblique coronal images, and three-dimensional virtual colonography (endoluminal) images. Axial and reformatted views were analysed, and TNM staging was done. Patients underwent surgery and conventional colonoscopy, and surgical histopathological correlation was obtained.
RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies for TNM colorectal cancer staging were 92.3% for T staging, 42.3% for N staging and 96.1% for M staging using CEMDCTC. There was excellent positive correlation for T staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.686) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.838) (p < 0.0001), and moderate positive correlation for N staging between CEMDCTC and surgery (κ-value = 0.424; p < 0.0001). The correlation between CEMDCTC and histopathology for N staging was poor (κ-value = 0.186; p < 0.05); the negative predictive value was 100% for lymph node detection. Moderate positive correlation was seen for M staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.462) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.649). No false negatives were identified in any of the M0 cases.
CONCLUSION: CEMDCTC correlated well with pathologic T and M stages, but poorly with pathologic N stage. It is an extremely accurate tool for T staging, but cannot reliably distinguish between malignant lymph nodes and enlarged reactive lymph nodes.
METHODS: We recruited 25 patients with 28 proven colorectal cancers. A 16-slice multidetector computed tomography scanner was used to generate two-dimensional multiplanar reformatted sagittal, coronal and oblique coronal images, and three-dimensional virtual colonography (endoluminal) images. Axial and reformatted views were analysed, and TNM staging was done. Patients underwent surgery and conventional colonoscopy, and surgical histopathological correlation was obtained.
RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies for TNM colorectal cancer staging were 92.3% for T staging, 42.3% for N staging and 96.1% for M staging using CEMDCTC. There was excellent positive correlation for T staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.686) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.838) (p < 0.0001), and moderate positive correlation for N staging between CEMDCTC and surgery (κ-value = 0.424; p < 0.0001). The correlation between CEMDCTC and histopathology for N staging was poor (κ-value = 0.186; p < 0.05); the negative predictive value was 100% for lymph node detection. Moderate positive correlation was seen for M staging between CEMDCTC and both surgery (κ-value = 0.462) and histopathology (κ-value = 0.649). No false negatives were identified in any of the M0 cases.
CONCLUSION: CEMDCTC correlated well with pathologic T and M stages, but poorly with pathologic N stage. It is an extremely accurate tool for T staging, but cannot reliably distinguish between malignant lymph nodes and enlarged reactive lymph nodes.