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. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases from 1996 to March 2012 were searched. STUDY SELECTION AND INTERVENTIONS: Either MRI or endoluminal ultrasound was used to restage rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy or radiation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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%. LIMITATIONS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.