Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 168-173, February 2009
Prediction of rectal lymph node metastasis by pelvic computed tomography measurement
Abstract
Aim
Rectal cancer staging represents a crucial step to select the best treatment for this tumour. Particularly after neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), it may influence the surgical procedure (e.g. radical resection vs. local excision). The aim of this study was to determine the best lymph node size cut-off at computed tomography (CT) to predict nodal metastasis in rectal cancer patients with and without preoperative CRT.
Methods
A consecutive series of patients operated on for primary mid–low rectal adenocarcinoma, all staged with pelvic CT scan, were subdivided as follows: those who underwent surgery alone treatment without CRT (Group A) and those who underwent preoperative CRT (Group B). All CT scans were re-viewed by a single radiologist and, based on the lymph node size, findings were compared with pathologic lymph node status (pN). At each lymph node size cut-off value, the following were calculated: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). The best cut-off value was defined as having an accuracy ≥70% with the highest NPV.
Results
The study population consisted of 162 patients: Group A (n
=
52) and Group B (n
=
110). Patients classified as pN-positive (n
=
45) had a higher number of and larger sized lymph nodes by CT scan than patients classified as pN-negative (n
=
117). The cut-off values with an accuracy ≥70% ranged between 7 and 11
mm in Group A and between 9 and 14
mm in Group B. The cut-off with the best NPV was 7
mm for Group A and 10
mm for Group B.
Conclusions
Acknowledging the limitations of the dimensional criterion, lymph node size cut-off values found in our study may be useful for planning rectal cancer treatment using CT scan.
Keywords: Rectal cancer staging, Lymph node status, Computed tomography
To access this article, please choose from the options below
PII: S0748-7983(08)00076-0
doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2008.02.006
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 168-173, February 2009
