Rectal Tumour Staging with Endorectal Ultrasound: Is There Any Difference between Western and Eastern European Countries?

Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography in the Assessment of Rectal Tumors: How Well Does It Work in Clinical Practice?

Endorectal ultrasound applications in the evaluation of rectal tumors could be a useful tool in achieving proper staging of rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of rectal tumor staging by flexible endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with real-time elastography (RTE) using the gold standard post-surgery histological analysis of the resected tissue as the control. The second aim of our research was to establish cutoff values for the EUS-RTE strain ratio corresponding to stages by independently comparing the stiffness values obtained with histology and EUS-RTE staging in order to minimize observation bias. We evaluated the records of 130 patients with a rectal tumor confirmed by biopsy. EUS was used in 70 patients, EUS-RTE-in the other 60. We found no statistically significant differences in staging accuracy when comparing EUS to EUS-RTE. Through a correspondence method between staging assessment and the EUS-RTE stain ratio, we identified cutoff intervals for T2, T3, and T4 staging that were nonoverlapping and proved to be statistically significant in terms of EUS-RTE values (significantly different ascending values from one interval to the other). We found that EUS-RTE offers slightly better, although not statistically significant sensitivity and specificity for T and N stage predictions compared to 2D EUS. Our results showed that EUS-RTE offers slightly higher sensitivity and specificity compared to EUS. Reliable cutoff intervals were found for strain rate elastography, previously available only for shear wave elastography (SWE) which is currently unavailable on any EUS system. Thus, these commonly available EUS-RTE systems can serve as a complementary tool in the staging of rectal tumors.

EFSUMB Recommendations for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound Part 3: Endorectal, Endoanal and Perineal Ultrasound

This article represents part 3 of the EFSUMB Recommendations and Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound (GIUS). It provides an overview of the examination techniques recommended by experts in the field of endorectal/endoanal ultrasound (ERUS/EAUS), as well as perineal ultrasound (PNUS). The most important indications are rectal tumors and inflammatory diseases like fistula and abscesses in patients with or without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). PNUS sometimes is more flexible and convenient compared to ERUS. However, the technique of ERUS is quite well established, especially for the staging of rectal cancer. EAUS also gained ground in the evaluation of perianal diseases like fistulas, abscesses and incontinence. For the staging of perirectal tumors, the use of PNUS in addition to conventional ERUS could be recommended. For the staging of anal carcinomas, PNUS can be a good option because of the higher resolution. Both ERUS and PNUS are considered excellent guidance methods for invasive interventions, such as the drainage of fluids or targeted biopsy of tissue lesions. For abscess detection and evaluation, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) also helps in therapy planning.

Radiotherapy for Patients With Resected Tumor Deposit-Positive Colorectal Cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Based Population Study

CONTEXT

- According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer's Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition, TNM classification, tumor deposit (TD)-positive colorectal cancers (CRCs) are classified as N1c. The effects of radiotherapy and the effects of the updated American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition TNM N1c classification for patients with TD-positive CRC are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

- To investigate outcomes of radiotherapy in patients with resected TD-positive CRC.

DESIGN

- Resected TD-positive CRCs diagnosed from 2010 to 2014 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 database. Factors associated with overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were investigated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

- We included 2712 qualified CRC patients, who either underwent adjuvant radiotherapy (n = 187; 6.9%) or received no radiotherapy (n = 2525; 93.1%). Univariate Cox proportional models showed improved CSS among all CRC patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy (CSS hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95) and among rectal cancer patients when separated by location (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.83), although these associations were attenuated in multivariable-adjusted models. There was improved OS among rectal cancer patients (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99). In subgroup analyses, radiotherapy was not associated with OS or CSS in either metastatic or nonmetastatic CRC patients. Instead, N1c category (versus N0) was associated with a worse OS (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31-1.57) but was not associated with CSS.

CONCLUSIONS

- Radiotherapy did not independently improve OS among TD-positive CRC patients. In this study, classifying TD positivity as N1c was associated with worse OS than classifying TD positivity as N0. The findings seem to challenge the benefits of radiotherapy and the new N1c classification of TD for TD-positive CRC patients.