Rectal endosonography: just how good are we at its interpretation?

How to Study the Location and Size of Rectal Tumors That Are Candidates for Local Surgery: Rigid Rectoscopy, Magnetic Resonance, Endorectal Ultrasound or Colonoscopy? An Interobservational Study

1.

BACKGROUND

Preoperative staging of rectal lesions for transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) comprises digital rectal examination, intraoperative rigid rectoscopy (IRR), endorectal ultrasound (EUS), colonoscopy and rectal magnetic resonance imaging (rMRI). The gold standard for topographic features is IRR. Are the results of the other tests sufficiently reliable to eliminate the need for IRR? rMRI is a key test in advanced rectal cancer and is not operator-dependent. Description of anatomical landmarks is variable. Can we rely on the information regarding topographic features provided by all radiologists? 2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a concordance interobservational study involving four diagnostic tests of anatomical characteristics of rectal lesions (colonoscopy, EUS, rectal MRI and IRR), performed by four expert radiologists, regarding topographic rectal features with rMRI. 3.

RESULTS

Fifty-five rectal tumors were operated on by using TES. The distance of the tumor from the anal verge, location by quadrants, size by quadrants and size of tumor were assessed (IRR as gold standard). For most of the tumors, the correlation between IRR and colonoscopy or EUS was very good (ICC > 0.75); the correlation between rMRI and IRR in respect of the size by quadrants (ICC = 0.092) and location by quadrants (ICC = 0.292) was weak. Topographic landmarks studied by the expert radiologists had an excellent correlation, except for distance from the peritoneal reflection to the anal verge (ICC = 0.606). 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical description of rectal lesions by IRR, EUS, colonoscopy and rMRI is reliable. Topographic data obtained by EUS and colonoscopy can serve as a reference to avoid IRR. Determination of these topographic data by rMRI is less reliable. As performed by the expert radiologists, the anatomical study by rMRI is accurate and reproducible.

The impact of transanal local excision of early rectal cancer on completion rectal resection without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The impact of transanal local excision (TAE) of early rectal cancer (ERC) on subsequent completion rectal resection (CRR) for unfavorable histology or margin involvement is unclear. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of TAE on CRR in patients without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature up to March 2020. Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched for studies reporting outcomes of CRR after TAE for ERC. We excluded patients who had neoadjuvant CRT and endoscopic local excision. Surgical, functional, pathological and oncological outcomes were assessed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies involving 353 patients were included. Pathology following TAE was as follows T0 = 2 (0.5%); T1 = 154 (44.7%); T2 = 142 (41.2%); T3 = 43 (12.5%); Tx = 3 (0.8%); T not reported = 9. Fifty-three percent were > T1. Abdominoperineal resection (APR) was performed in 80 (23.2%) patients. Postoperative major morbidity and mortality occurred in 22 (11.4%) and 3 (1.1%), patients, respectively. An incomplete mesorectal fascia resulting in defects of the mesorectum was reported in 30 (24.6%) cases. Thirteen (12%) patients developed recurrence: 8 (3.1%) local, 19 (7.3%) distant, 4 (1.5%) local and distant. The 5-year cancer-specific survival was 92%. Only 1 study assessed anal function reporting no continence disorders in 11 patients. In the meta-analysis, CRR after TAE showed an increased APR rate (OR 5.25; 95% CI 1.27-21.8; p 0.020) and incomplete mesorectum rate (OR 3.48; 95% CI 1.32-9.19; p 0.010) compared to primary total mesorectal excision (TME). Two case matched studies reported no difference in recurrence rate and disease free survival respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The data are incomplete and of low quality. There was a tendency towards an increased risk of APR and poor specimen quality. It is necessary to improve the accuracy of preoperative staging of malignant rectal tumors in patients scheduled for TAE.

Anorectal anatomy and imaging techniques

The rectum and anus are two anatomically complex organs with diverse pathologies. This article reviews the basic anatomy of the rectum and anus. In addition, it addresses the current radiographic techniques used to evaluate these structures, specifically ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and defecography.

A critical appraisal of endorectal ultrasound and transanal endoscopic microsurgery and decision-making in early rectal cancer

AIM

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for early rectal cancer (ERC) gives results similar to major surgery in selected cases. Endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) is an important part of the preoperative selection process. This study reports its accuracy and impact for patients entered on the UK TEM database.

METHOD

The UK TEM database comprises prospectively collected data on 494 patients. This data set was used to determine the prevalence of ERUS in preoperative staging and its accuracy by comparing preoperative T-stage with definitive pathological staging following TEM.

RESULTS

ERUS was performed in 165 of 494 patients who underwent TEM for rectal cancer. It inaccurately staged rectal cancer in 44.8% of tumours: 32.7% were understaged and 12.1% were overstaged. There was no significant difference in the depth of TEM excision or R1 rate between the patients who underwent ERUS before TEM and those who did not (P = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

The data show that ERUS is employed in a minority of patients with rectal cancers undergoing TEM in the UK and its accuracy in this 'Real World' practice is disappointing.