Prospective comparison of endorectal ultrasound, three-dimensional endorectal ultrasound, and endorectal MRI in the preoperative evaluation of rectal tumors. Preliminary results.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the value of endorectal ultrasound (EUS), three-dimensional (3D) EUS, and endorectal MRI in the preoperative staging of rectal neoplasms.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients with rectal tumors were assessed by EUS and endorectal MRI. Additionally, three-dimensional ultrasound was performed in a subgroup of 25 patients. EUS data were obtained with a bifocal multiplane transducer (10 MHz) and processed on a 3D ultrasound workstation. MR imaging was carried out with a 1. 5 T superconducting unit using an endorectal surface coil.

RESULTS

EUS was carried out successfully in all 30 patients, whereas endorectal MRI was not feasible in two patients. Compared with the histopathological classification, EUS and endorectal MRI correctly determined the tumor infiltration depth in 25 of 30 and 28 patients, respectively. The comparative accuracy of EUS, 3D EUS, and endorectal MRI in predicting tumor invasion was 84%, 88%, and 91%, respectively. EUS, three-dimensional EUS, and endorectal MRI enabled us to assess the lymph node status correctly in 25, 25, and 24 patients, respectively. Both three-dimensional EUS and endorectal MRI combined high-resolution imaging and multiplanar display options. Assessment of additional scan planes facilitated the interpretation of the findings and improved the understanding of the three-dimensional anatomy.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of three-dimensional EUS and endorectal MRI in the assessment of the infiltration depth of rectal cancer is comparable to conventional EUS. One advantage of both methods is the ability to obtain multiplanar images, which may be helpful for the planning of surgery in the future.