European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2025
Defining the tumor location in rectal cancer - Practice variations and impact on treatment decision making.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Goedegebuure Elisabeth P, Arico Francesco M, Lahaye Max J, Maas Monique, Beets Geerard L, Peters Femke P, van Leerdam Monique E, Beets-Tan Regina G H, Lambregts Doenja M J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To summarize differences in current guideline recommendations for rectal tumor localization and generate an overview of published MRI measurement methods and their correlation with endoscopy.
SUMMARYOF BACKGROUND DATA: Rectal tumor location is a well-known factor that impacts treatment planning, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal method to define it.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted to retrieve clinical and radiological rectal cancer guidelines as well as original research studies on MRI-based measurements. Guidelines were assessed for definitions, landmarks, modalities and measurement methods to define tumor location, and how these impact treatment planning. Research studies were evaluated to compare MRI-methods and their correlation with endoscopy.
RESULTS: 18 clinical and 6 radiological guidelines were retrieved. In 83 % of clinical guidelines tumor location (low/middle/high) is included in the treatment algorithm as a factor impacting surgical and/or neoadjuvant treatment. Measurement cut-offs and landmarks vary significantly with the anal verge being the most commonly used landmark (28 %). Thirty-nine percent of clinical guidelines offer no definitions to define rectal tumor location. The majority of research studies (67 %) reported good-excellent agreement between MRI and endoscopy, though measurement differences of up to 2.5 cm were reported.
CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in definitions and landmarks recommended in current guidelines to measure and classify rectal tumor location. This may affect treatment planning as well as trial inclusions, highlighting the need for standardized methods that better align between clinical and radiological guidelines.
SUMMARYOF BACKGROUND DATA: Rectal tumor location is a well-known factor that impacts treatment planning, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal method to define it.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted to retrieve clinical and radiological rectal cancer guidelines as well as original research studies on MRI-based measurements. Guidelines were assessed for definitions, landmarks, modalities and measurement methods to define tumor location, and how these impact treatment planning. Research studies were evaluated to compare MRI-methods and their correlation with endoscopy.
RESULTS: 18 clinical and 6 radiological guidelines were retrieved. In 83 % of clinical guidelines tumor location (low/middle/high) is included in the treatment algorithm as a factor impacting surgical and/or neoadjuvant treatment. Measurement cut-offs and landmarks vary significantly with the anal verge being the most commonly used landmark (28 %). Thirty-nine percent of clinical guidelines offer no definitions to define rectal tumor location. The majority of research studies (67 %) reported good-excellent agreement between MRI and endoscopy, though measurement differences of up to 2.5 cm were reported.
CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in definitions and landmarks recommended in current guidelines to measure and classify rectal tumor location. This may affect treatment planning as well as trial inclusions, highlighting the need for standardized methods that better align between clinical and radiological guidelines.