Endorectal Ultrasonography and Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Show Similar Diagnostic Accuracy in Local Staging of Rectal Cancer: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors:
- Gaetano LuglioGaetano Luglio
- Gianluca PaganoGianluca Pagano
- Francesca Paola TropeanoFrancesca Paola Tropeano
- Eduardo SpinaEduardo Spina
- Rosa MaioneRosa Maione
- Alessia ChiniAlessia Chini
- Francesco MaioneFrancesco Maione
- Giuseppe GalloroGiuseppe Galloro
- Mariano Cesare GiglioMariano Cesare Giglio
- Giovanni Domenico De PalmaGiovanni Domenico De Palma
Open Access
- 21 December 2021
- journal article
- review article
- Published by MDPI AG in Diagnostics
- Vol. 12 (1) , 5
Abstract
Background: Endorectal Ultrasonography (EUS-ERUS) and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are world-wide performed for the local staging of rectal cancer (RC), but no clear consensus on their indications is present, there being literature in support of both. The aim of this meta-analysis is to give an update regarding the diagnostic test accuracy of ERUS and pelvic MRI about the local staging of RC. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search from November 2020 to October 2021 was performed to select studies in which head-to-head comparison between ERUS and MRI was reported for the local staging of rectal cancer. Quality and risk of bias were assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Our primary outcome was the T staging accuracy of ERUS and MRI for which pooled accuracy indices were calculated using a bivariable random-effects model. In addition, a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (hSROC) was created to characterize the accuracy of ERUS and MRI for the staging of T and N parameters. The area under the hSROC curve (AUChSROC) was determined as a measure of diagnostic accuracy. Results: Seven studies and 331 patients were included in our analysis. ERUS and MRI showed a similar accuracy for the T staging, with AUChSROC curves of 0.91 (95% C.I., 0.89 to 0.93) and 0.87 (95% C.I., 0.84 to 0.89), respectively (p = 0.409). For T staging, ERUS showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% C.I. 0.72 to 0.89) and pooled specificity of 0.91 (95% C.I. 0.77–0.96), while MRI had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.69 (95% C.I. 0.55–0.81) and 0.88 (95% C.I. 0.79–0.93), respectively. ERUS and MRI showed a similar accuracy in the N staging too, with AUChSROC curves of 0.92 (95% C.I., 0.89 to 0.94) and 0.93 (95% C.I., 0.90 to 0.95), respectively (p = 0.389). Conclusions: In conclusion, ERUS and MRI are comparable imaging techniques for the local staging of rectal cancer.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Role of endoscopy in the staging and management of colorectal cancerGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2013
- QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy StudiesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2011
- EUS and magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of rectal cancer: a prospective and comparative studyGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2011
- Local staging of rectal cancer: the current role of MRIEuropean Radiology, 2006
- Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational studyBMJ, 2006
- Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Accuracy of Endorectal Ultrasonography in Preoperative Staging of Rectal TumorsDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2002
- Assessment of rectal tumor infiltration utilizing endorectal MR imaging and comparison with endoscopic rectal sonographyJournal of Surgical Oncology, 1997
- Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging: a Prospective, Comparative Study for Preoperative Staging and Follow-Up of Rectal CancerEndoscopy, 1995