Effects of endorectal ultrasonography in the surgical management of rectal adenomas and carcinomas

Endoscopic ultrasound in oncology: An update of clinical applications in the gastrointestinal tract

An accurate staging is necessary to select the best treatment and evaluate prognosis in oncology. Staging usually begins with noninvasive imaging such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography. In the absence of distant metastases, endoscopic ultrasound plays an important role in the diagnosis and staging of gastrointestinal tumors, being the most accurate modality for local-regional staging. Its use for tumor and nodal involvement in pre-surgical evaluation has proven to reduce unnecessary surgeries. The aim of this article is to review the current role of endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of esophageal, gastric and colorectal cancer.

Preoperative assessment of rectal cancer stage: state of the art

Rectal cancer is one of the most common tumors worldwide; it accounts for approximately 25-30% of cancers arising in the large bowel. Owing to greater distribution of screening programs and better attention from both patients and General Practitioners to this disease, in recent years we have observed an increasing number of cases diagnosed in the early stages, with a consequent better prognosis. The improved 5-year survival is also partially due to better, and more accurate, diagnostic techniques and to more curative treatments. In this review, the authors analyze and discuss the more recent diagnostic techniques for an accurate preoperative staging of rectal cancer, highlighting each method's advantages and limits for their routine use in clinical practice.

Local therapy for rectal cancer: still controversial?

PURPOSE

Many considerations, such as morbidity, sexual and urinary dysfunction, or risk of definitive stoma have led to the increased popularity of local therapy in the therapeutic strategy for rectal cancer. However, its role in curative intent is still controversial with oncologic long-term results lower than those obtained by radical surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Abstract books, and reference lists from reviews were searched with English language publications to review the current status of evidence for local therapy in rectal cancer, looking especially at the oncologic results and patient selection. We have focused on the new strategies combining neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment to explain their place in the management of rectal cancer.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The key to potentially curative local treatment for rectal cancer is patient selection by identifying the best candidates with preoperative tumor staging and clinical and pathologic assessment of favorable features. Low-risk T1 is suitable for local excision alone. Limited data suggest that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy may be helpful in patients with unfavorable T1 and T2 lesions, achieving a local recurrence rate<20 percent. However, the efficacy of salvage surgery after local excision is uncertain.

ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis, staging, and management of colorectal cancer

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of experts. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to the recommendations.

Rectal cancer: review with emphasis on MR imaging

One concern after rectal cancer surgery is the high local recurrence rate. Randomized trials have shown that the best local control rate for rectal cancer patients as a group is achieved after a short course of radiation therapy followed by optimal surgery. It is debatable, however, whether all patients with rectal cancer should undergo preoperative radiation therapy. Preoperative identification of those most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy is important. Therefore, the challenge for preoperative imaging in rectal cancer is to determine subgroups of patients with different risks for recurrence: those with superficial tumors, who can be treated with surgery alone; those with operable tumors and a wide circumferential resection margin, who can be treated with a short course of radiation therapy followed by total mesorectal excision; and those with advanced cancer and a close or involved resection margin, who require a long course of radiation therapy, with or without chemotherapy, and extensive surgery. So far, there is no consensus on the role of diagnostic imaging (endorectal ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance [MR] imaging) in the care of patients with primary rectal cancer. Preoperative staging has long relied on digital examination alone, which indicates that it has been difficult to achieve accuracy levels high enough for clinical decision making with preoperative imaging. In this review, the relevance of preoperative imaging in staging the local extent of primary rectal cancer will be discussed. Research on various imaging modalities, with an emphasis on MR, will be discussed under four main headings that address the most relevant aspects of local spread of rectal tumors: T stage, circumferential resection margin, locally advanced rectal cancer, and N stage.

Endorectal ultrasound detection of focal carcinoma within rectal adenomas

BACKGROUND

The misdiagnosis of a rectal adenoma by biopsy and subsequent finding of invasive cancer after transanal excision is associated with a number of pitfalls. Problems include suboptimal therapy for a potentially curable cancerous lesion, potential tumor transgression of the local site with increased chance for local recurrence, and increased potential for more radical surgery or adjuvant chemoradiation. The utility of endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) in guiding treatment decisions of rectal villous adenomas has been reported, but series are small and are from single institutions. To determine the utility of ERUS in the diagnosis of rectal adenomas, we compared diagnosis made by biopsy alone to diagnosis made by a combination of biopsy and ERUS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed by way of a PubMed search to find articles with the following terms: "biopsy-negative rectal adenomas," "preoperative ERUS diagnosis," and "surgical histopathology." Five studies met the criteria, thus providing data for 258 adenomas. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed on the data.

RESULTS

Among the 258 biopsy-negative rectal adenomas, 24% had focal carcinoma on histopathology. ERUS correctly established a cancer diagnosis in 81% (95% confidence interval 69 to 90) of these misdiagnosed lesions. Thus, ERUS diagnosis of biopsy-negative rectal adenomas could be expected to decrease the need for additional surgery and other associated problems caused by misdiagnosis from 24% to 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

ERUS is a useful adjunct to biopsy in the preoperative workup of rectal villous adenomas, and we recommend its routine use. Accurate preoperative assessment allows the surgeon to counsel the patient appropriately regarding the best operation, the perioperative risks, and the chances of local recurrence.

Rectal endosonography can distinguish benign rectal lesions from invasive early rectal cancers

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether an experienced ultrasound examiner, using good ultrasound equipment with high multifrequency probes, can discriminate between a high grade or low grade dysplastic adenoma (pT0) and very early invasive rectal cancers (pT1).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Sixty consecutive patients with clinically possibly pT0 or pT1 rectal tumours referred for transanal local excision underwent endorectal ultrasound examination. Lesions where the endorectal ultrasound image showed the mucosal layer to be expanded but the submucosal layer to be intact (uT0) were considered to represent a low grade or high grade dysplasia adenoma (pT0). An irregularity or disruption of the submucosal layer (uT1) was considered to characterize early invasive rectal cancers (pT1). The ultrasound staging was compared with the histological staging made on the basis of the diagnoses in the excised specimens.

RESULTS

The histopathological diagnoses were: invasive rectal cancer (n = 18, 10 pT1, 4 pT2, 4 pT3 cancers); high grade dysplastic adenoma (n = 21); low grade dysplastic adenoma (n = 18); non adenomatous benign lesions (n = 3). Endorectal ultrasound incorrectly classified two of the invasive cancers (both pT1 tumours) as noninvasive lesions. Five of 42 pT0 tumours were overstaged as uT1 tumours. Overstaging was more common in patients who had undergone a previous excision and in tumours with peritumoral inflammation and desmoplastic reaction. The sensitivity of endorectal ultrasound with regard to invasive cancer was 89% (16/18), specificity 88% (37/42), positive predictive value 76% (16/21), negative predictive value 95% (37/39), and accuracy 88% (53/60). Among pT0 and pT1 tumours, the corresponding figures were 80% (8/10), 88% (37/42), 62% (8/13), 95% (37/39), and 87% (45/52).

CONCLUSION

Endorectal ultrasound can distinguish between noninvasive lesions and invasive rectal cancers clinically of stage pT0 or pT1.

Assessment of the accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography in anorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Accurate preoperative staging of anorectal neoplasia is required to identify patients for whom local excision or adjuvant therapy may be appropriate. The objectives of this study were to review the accuracy of endoluminal transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in the staging of rectal cancers and to determine the learning curve before optimal staging accuracy can be achieved.

METHODS

The results of all TRUS examinations for the assessment of anorectal neoplasia performed by two colorectal surgeons at two teaching hospitals of the University of Sydney from 1991 to 2001 were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 433 patients examined by TRUS, 356 were included, of whom 263 (73.9 per cent) had nodal status assessed histologically. Of the 77 patients excluded, 50 had undergone radiotherapy before operation. TRUS achieved excellent accuracy when compared with histopathology reports using kappa statistics for standard Union Internacional Contra la Cancrum (UICC) staging (kappa = 0.89), tumour wall penetration (kappa = 0.70), lymph node detection (kappa = 0.66) and a proposed new staging system (kappa = 0.94). In addition, the increase in TRUS accuracy with operator experience demonstrates the need to perform 50 or more procedures before optimal accuracy is achieved.

CONCLUSION

TRUS provides an appropriate investigation with which to select patients with T1 tumours for local excision, and patients with T3 or T4 tumours for preoperative radiotherapy. The relative inaccuracy of staging T2 tumours by TRUS has led to a proposed alternative ultrasonographic staging system.

Comparative study of three-dimensional and conventional endorectal ultrasonography used in rectal cancer staging

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) imaging offers improved knowledge of various anatomic structures and tumors by providing 3D images. This prospective study was performed to verify whether 3D endorectal ultrasonography (EUS) enhances the accuracy of rectal cancer staging, as compared with conventional EUS.

METHODS

Using both 3D and conventional EUS, 33 consecutive patients with operable rectal cancer were preoperatively staged. A rigid 3D probe with a scanner was used for 3D EUS, and a rigid endorectal probe with a scanner was used for conventional EUS.

RESULTS

The accuracy of 3D EUS was 90.9% for pT2 and 84.8% for pT3, whereas that of conventional EUS was 84.8% and 75.8%, respectively, thereby showing no difference between these two methods. The lymph node metastasis was accurately predicted by 3D EUS in 28 patients (84.8%), whereas conventional EUS predicted the disorder in 22 patients (66.7%). The difference was not statistically significant. The average infiltration grade of the circumference on transverse 3D EUS scans was associated closely with advancement of the TNM stage (p <0.001-0.006) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.003). The presence of a cone-shaped surface on the deep tumor border correlated with the infiltration grade shown on all of the sectional displays (p <0.001-0.042) and with advancement of the TNM stage (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings did not show 3D EUS to have a significant advantage over conventional EUS for the accurate evaluation of rectal cancer, a numeric advantage may possibly be statistically significant in a further study with larger cases. Furthermore, stereoscopic visualization provided easier and complete understanding of both focal lesions and lymph nodes.

Source of errors in the evaluation of early rectal cancer by endoluminal ultrasonography

PURPOSE

Although preoperative evaluation of early rectal cancers can be done by endoluminal sonography and by means of colonoscopic findings, it is still controversial whether endoluminal sonography can effectively discriminate mucosal from submucosal lesions. This study was performed to verify objective causes of errors in the evaluation of early rectal cancer (T0/1) using a review of videotaped endoluminal sonography images.

METHODS

Eighty-nine patients with suspected early rectal cancer on endoluminal sonography were included. Two different scanners with appropriate probes were used according to tumor location, i.e., transrectal ultrasonography was used to scan up to 8 cm of the rectum above the anal verge, whereas endoscopic ultrasonography was used to assess higher lesions. Endoluminal sonography images were correlated with histologic infiltration and were reevaluated carefully to identify sources of errors.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity were 83.1 and 96.5 percent, respectively, for tumor staging, whereas sensitivity was very low compared with specificity (16.7 vs. 90.2 percent) for metastatic lymph nodes. Endoluminal sonography images showed irregularity of the underlying tumor border (P < 0.01) and hypoechoic blurring or cutoff of the inner and outer hypoechoic layers (P < 0.001), all of which closely correlated with histologic infiltration of tumor cells. Overstaging occurred more than twice as often as understaging in tumor reevaluation (14 vs. 5 occurrences). In contrast to tumors, lymph nodes showed a similar amount of both overstaging (four cases) and understaging (five cases). The sources of errors were summarized as five types: false instrumentation, interpretive errors, anatomic defects, imaging failure, and inevitable errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Because false instrumentation, interpretive errors, and anatomic defects were considered preventable, 23 (82.1 percent) of the 28 errors might have been avoided. Therefore, a clear image by endoluminal sonography can effectively distinguish mucosal from submucosal lesions in early rectal cancer.

Role of endoscopy in staging colorectal cancer

The treatment of colorectal cancer depends in large measure on the depth of tumor invasion and the extent of lymph node involvement. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has added a new dimension to the evaluation of tumor invasion and lymph node involvement in gastrointestinal cancer. The overall EUS accuracy for colorectal cancer T-staging is 78%, specificity is 73%, and sensitivity is 94%. In determining the nodal involvement by tumor, EUS has an accuracy of 75%, specificity of 73%, and sensitivity of 74%. Comparison with computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and MRI with endorectal coil (MRIEC) shows that EUS is an effective single modality for assessing tumor penetration of the rectal wall. It does not, however, allow the assessment of distant metastatic disease. For assessing lymph node involvement, MRIEC offers the most comprehensive information.

Role of endorectal ultrasound in the conservative management of rectal cancers

Endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS) extends the ability of the clinician to define the clinical features assessed on routine physical examination, and remains the best modality for accurately staging depth of penetration and presumptive nodal status in rectal cancers. The success of conservative management of rectal cancers is predicated on proper patient selection. The preoperative selection of the ideal patient for local therapies can be difficult, and the decision-making process takes into account many critical factors. Careful assessment of the T and N stages is critical in determining the success of conservative therapies, and directing treatment algorithms. Local resections with curative intent are limited to patients with T1N0 rectal cancers, and select patients with T2N0 tumors with favorable pathological criteria. Conservative management may also be extended to patients identified with significant underlying comorbid conditions staged preoperatively with unfavorable T2/T3 lesions, often combined with adjuvant therapies in a palliative setting. In addition, ERUS may have a role in the selection of those patients with more advanced lesions to neoadjuvant chemoradiation, followed by radical resection. Though not clearly defined, ERUS is evolving in its role in the postoperative follow-up of patients treated conservatively for rectal cancers, and can lead to the early detection of local recurrences. The widespread use of ERUS remains limited due to high operator variability and errors in interpretation; however, the role of ERUS in the postoperative management of rectal cancers is evolving and requires further evaluation.

Preoperative staging of rectal cancer using a 7.5 MHz front-loading US probe

BACKGROUND

Conventional echoendoscopes have disadvantages when used for staging colorectal cancer including the inability to pass the instrument through tight stenosis and limited maneuverability. This study evaluated the preoperative use of a newly developed 7.5 MHz front-loading ultrasound probe (FLUP) for local staging of rectal cancer.

METHODS

A 7.5 MHz FLUP, diameter 7.3 mm, was used in this study. The mechanical shaft portion of the probe can be passed in retrograde fashion through the accessory channel of a standard colonoscope. Thirty-nine patients with rectal cancer underwent ultrasonography with this probe. The tumors were staged using the TNM system, and the results were compared with the histologic findings of the resected specimens.

RESULTS

The FLUP proved to be satisfactory, with respect to maneuverability, for traversing stenosis and accurate recognition of small tumors under direct endoscopic control. The accuracy of the FLUP for T staging was 82% (32 of 39) for all tumors, 90% in pT1, and 79% in pT2 to pT4 tumors. The accuracy of the FLUP for N staging was 72% (23 of 32) overall. The sensitivity was 83%, the specificity was 65%, the positive predictive value was 59%, and the negative predictive value was 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

The 7.5 MHz FLUP appears to be useful for preoperative local staging of rectal cancer. This system makes it technically easier to image small cancers as well as advanced rectal cancers.