title: Restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging and endoluminal ultrasound after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Magnetic resonance imaging and endoluminal ultrasound play an important role in the restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy, yet their diagnostic accuracy is still controversial.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the diagnostic performance of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound.
  
  
  METHODS
  Electronic databases from 1996 to March 2012 were searched.
  Either MRI or endoluminal ultrasound was used to restage rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy or radiation.
  
  
  METHODS
  T category, lymph node, and circumferential resection involvement were measured.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The sensitivity estimate for rectal cancer diagnosis (T0) by endoluminal ultrasound (37.0%; 95% CI, 24.0%-52.1%) was higher (p = 0.04) than the sensitivity estimate for MRI (15.3%; 95% CI, 6.5%-32.0%). For T3-4 category, sensitivity estimates of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were comparable, 82.1% and 87.6%, whereas specificity estimates were poor (53.5% and 66.4%). For lymph node involvement, there was no significant difference between the sensitivity estimates for MRI (61.8%) and endoluminal ultrasound (49.8%). Specificity estimates for MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were 72.0% and 78.7%. For circumferential resection margin involvement, MRI sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% and 80.0%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  To identify the heterogeneity, metaregression was performed on covariates. However, few of the covariates were identified to be statistically significant because of the lack of adequate original data.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Accurate restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer by MRI and endoluminal ultrasound is still a challenge. Identifying T0 rectal cancer by imaging is not reliable. Before performing surgery, restaging is important, but some of the T0-2 patients are likely overestimated as T3-4. Both modalities for lymph node involvement are not very good. Magnetic resonance imaging may be a good method to reassess circumferential resection margin.
authors: 1Department of Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 2Department of Radiology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 3School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China 4Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
authors: Ri-Sheng
authors: RS
authors: Zhao
authors: Hui
authors: H
authors: Wang
authors: Zhi-Yang
authors: ZY
authors: Zhou
authors: Qian
authors: Q
authors: Zhou
authors: Michael W
authors: MW
authors: Mulholland
mesh_terms: D059248:Chemoradiotherapy; D019160:Endosonography / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis / Q000473:pathology; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology* / Q000628:therapy*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity