View in EDS PDF Full Text

Distribution of mesorectal lymph nodes in rectal cancer: in vivo MR imaging compared with histopathological examination. Initial observations.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Distribution of mesorectal lymph nodes in rectal cancer: in vivo MR imaging compared with histopathological examination. Initial observations.
Authors: Koh, D.1 dowmukoh@icr.ac.uk, Brown, G.1, Temple, L.1, Blake, H.1, Raja, A.1, Toomey, P.1, Bett, N.1, Farhat, S.1, Norman, A.1, Daniels, I.1, Husband, J.1, Koh, D M2 (AUTHOR), Norman, A R (AUTHOR), Husband, J E (AUTHOR)
Source: European Radiology. Aug2005, Vol. 15 Issue 8, p1650-1657. 8p.
Subjects: Lymph nodes, Magnetic resonance imaging, Rectal cancer, Cancer patients, Tumors, Therapeutics, Adenocarcinoma, Comparative studies, Longitudinal method, Research methodology, Medical cooperation, Rectum, Rectum tumors, Research, Evaluation research
Abstract: The aim of this work was to determine the distribution of mesorectal lymph nodes using T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with histopathological findings in patients with rectal carcinoma. Sixteen patients with rectal carcinoma undergoing primary surgery without pre-operative neoadjuvant treatment were evaluated using 3-mm axial T2-weighted MR imaging. The position of each visible mesorectal node on imaging was localised by measuring its minimum distance from the mesorectal fascia (d(m)), its minimum distance from the rectal wall (d(r)) and its distance from the distal tumour margin (d(v)). Independent assessment of d(m), d(r) and d(v) was made at histopathological examination. Eighty-five mesorectal nodes on in vivo MR imaging were matched to histopathological findings. On imaging, 67/85 mesorectal nodes were found at the level of the tumour and 84/85 were identified at or within 5 cm proximal to the tumour. Only one out of 85 nodes was seen below the inferior tumour margin. The mean difference of d(m) and d(r) obtained on in vivo MR imaging and histopathological examination was 0.7 mm (95% confidence interval, CI, -0.12 to 1.42 mm) and -1.1 mm (95% CI -2.29 to 0.14 mm), respectively. Almost all mesorectal nodes visible on MR imaging were found at the level of tumour or within 5 cm proximal to the tumour. This has implications for the planning of MR imaging and the level of mesorectal transection at surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 17671728
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Distribution of mesorectal lymph nodes in rectal cancer: in vivo MR imaging compared with histopathological examination. Initial observations.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Koh%2C+D%2E%22">Koh, D.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> dowmukoh@icr.ac.uk</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brown%2C+G%2E%22">Brown, G.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Temple%2C+L%2E%22">Temple, L.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Blake%2C+H%2E%22">Blake, H.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Raja%2C+A%2E%22">Raja, A.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Toomey%2C+P%2E%22">Toomey, P.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bett%2C+N%2E%22">Bett, N.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Farhat%2C+S%2E%22">Farhat, S.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Norman%2C+A%2E%22">Norman, A.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniels%2C+I%2E%22">Daniels, I.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Husband%2C+J%2E%22">Husband, J.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Koh%2C+D+M%22">Koh, D M</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Norman%2C+A+R%22">Norman, A R</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Husband%2C+J+E%22">Husband, J E</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22European+Radiology%22">European Radiology</searchLink>. Aug2005, Vol. 15 Issue 8, p1650-1657. 8p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lymph+nodes%22">Lymph nodes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Magnetic+resonance+imaging%22">Magnetic resonance imaging</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rectal+cancer%22">Rectal cancer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cancer+patients%22">Cancer patients</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tumors%22">Tumors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Therapeutics%22">Therapeutics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adenocarcinoma%22">Adenocarcinoma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+studies%22">Comparative studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+method%22">Longitudinal method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology%22">Research methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+cooperation%22">Medical cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rectum%22">Rectum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rectum+tumors%22">Rectum tumors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+research%22">Evaluation research</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aim of this work was to determine the distribution of mesorectal lymph nodes using T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with histopathological findings in patients with rectal carcinoma. Sixteen patients with rectal carcinoma undergoing primary surgery without pre-operative neoadjuvant treatment were evaluated using 3-mm axial T2-weighted MR imaging. The position of each visible mesorectal node on imaging was localised by measuring its minimum distance from the mesorectal fascia (d(m)), its minimum distance from the rectal wall (d(r)) and its distance from the distal tumour margin (d(v)). Independent assessment of d(m), d(r) and d(v) was made at histopathological examination. Eighty-five mesorectal nodes on in vivo MR imaging were matched to histopathological findings. On imaging, 67/85 mesorectal nodes were found at the level of the tumour and 84/85 were identified at or within 5 cm proximal to the tumour. Only one out of 85 nodes was seen below the inferior tumour margin. The mean difference of d(m) and d(r) obtained on in vivo MR imaging and histopathological examination was 0.7 mm (95% confidence interval, CI, -0.12 to 1.42 mm) and -1.1 mm (95% CI -2.29 to 0.14 mm), respectively. Almost all mesorectal nodes visible on MR imaging were found at the level of tumour or within 5 cm proximal to the tumour. This has implications for the planning of MR imaging and the level of mesorectal transection at surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=17671728
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s00330-005-2751-8
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 1650
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Lymph nodes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Magnetic resonance imaging
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rectal cancer
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cancer patients
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tumors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Therapeutics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adenocarcinoma
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rectum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rectum tumors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Distribution of mesorectal lymph nodes in rectal cancer: in vivo MR imaging compared with histopathological examination. Initial observations.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Koh, D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brown, G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Temple, L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Blake, H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Raja, A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Toomey, P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bett, N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Farhat, S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Norman, A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Daniels, I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Husband, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Koh, D M
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Norman, A R
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Husband, J E
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Text: Aug2005
              Type: published
              Y: 2005
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09387994
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 15
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Radiology
              Type: main
ResultId 1