RadioGraphics
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kruskal, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Longmaid, H. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kruskal, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Longmaid, H. E.

RadioGraphics, Vol 17, 609-626, Copyright © 1997 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Pitfalls and sources of error in staging rectal cancer with endorectal us

JB Kruskal, RA Kane, SM Sentovich and HE Longmaid
Department of Radiological Sciences, Deaconess Hospital, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

Endorectal ultrasound (US) is an accurate technique for local staging of rectal cancer. Because the choice of surgery depends on the level of tumor invasion and lymph node involvement, the surgeon relies largely on endorectal US findings when planning treatment. However, staging inaccuracies can occur due to over or underestimation of tumor depth, misinterpretation of lymph node involvement, and operator inexperience. Technical pitfalls in US of the rectal wall include proximity of the lesion to the anal verge, improper balloon inflation, a nonperpendicular imaging plane, shadowing artifacts due to air or stool, reverberation artifacts, refraction artifacts, and a transducer gain setting that is too high. Sources of error in tumor staging with endorectal US include interpretation differences, endosonologist bias, tumor location, tumor stenosis, peritumoral inflammation, postbiopsy and postsurgical changes, post irradiation changes, hemorrhage, and pedunculated or villous tumors. Node size and appearance are not reliable indicators of lymph node involvement. Awareness of these sources of error will improve the technical quality of endorectal US studies and allow more accurate tumor staging.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. P. Dhamanaskar, W. Thurston, and S. R. Wilson
Transvaginal sonography as an adjunct to endorectal sonography in the staging of rectal cancer in women.
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2006; 187(1): 90 - 98.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
G. Engin
Endosonographic imaging of anorectal diseases.
J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2006; 25(1): 57 - 73.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. G. Maier, S. H. Kreuzer, F. Herbst, F. Wrba, W. Schima, M. A. Funovics, B. K. Teleky, and G. L. Lechner
Transrectal Sonography of Anal Sphincter Infiltration in Lower Rectal Carcinoma
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2000; 175(3): 735 - 739.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. B. Kruskal, S. M. Sentovich, and R. A. Kane
Staging of Rectal Cancer after Polypectomy: Usefulness of Endorectal US
Radiology, April 1, 1999; 211(1): 31 - 35.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOGRAPHICS RADIOLOGY RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1997 by the Radiological Society of North America.