title: Transrectal sonography in staging rectal carcinoma: the role of gray-scale, color-flow, and Doppler imaging analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of combining gray-scale sonography with color-flow imaging and pulsed Doppler transrectal sonography in the staging of rectal carcinoma.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-nine patients with primary rectal carcinoma underwent transrectal sonography. The rectal masses were staged T1-T2 or T3-T4 on the basis of gray-scale imaging. The local nodes were classified as benign or malignant on the basis of size and echogenicity. In 22 patients, color-flow imaging and pulsed Doppler imaging of the rectal mass and of the local lymph nodes were performed. The peak systolic velocity (PSV) and end diastolic velocity were documented, and the resistive index was calculated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Gray-scale imaging alone was used to stage T1-T2 masses with 88% sensitivity and 82% specificity. T3-T4 masses were staged with 82% sensitivity and 88% specificity. Overall accuracy was 85%. Gray-scale imaging of lymph nodes using a discriminatory size of less than or equal to 5 mm for benign nodes and greater than 5 mm for malignant nodes yielded a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 28%, and an accuracy of 52%. Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, we determined that a size of greater than or equal to 7 mm was optimal for characterizing nodes. Such a size provided an accuracy of 83%. PSV of less than 25 cm/sec distinguished T3-T4 from T1-T2 rectal masses with 75% sensitivity, 80% specificity, and 77% accuracy. A PSV of greater than 20 cm/sec classified a node as malignant with 100% sensitivity, 62% specificity, and 76% accuracy. A resistive index of greater than 0.61 classified a node as malignant with 71% sensitivity, 85% specificity, and 80% accuracy.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Color-flow imaging and pulsed Doppler imaging are useful additions to gray-scale transrectal sonography in staging primary rectal carcinomas. The combination has most value when evaluating perirectal nodes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520-8042, USA.
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Heneghan
authors.forename: R R
authors.initials: RR
authors.lastname: Salem
authors.forename: R C
authors.initials: RC
authors.lastname: Lange
authors.forename: K J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Taylor
authors.forename: L W
authors.initials: LW
authors.lastname: Hammers
mesh_terms: D002277:Carcinoma / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012372:ROC Curve; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D012007:Rectum / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D018615:Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color; D018617:Ultrasonography, Doppler, Pulsed