March 1990

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography in the Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Radiology, Hôtel-Dieu de Paris (Drs Guinet, Buy, Ghossain, Vadrot, and Ecoiffier); Department of Surgery, Hôpital Rothschild (Dr Sézeur); Department of Statistics, Hôpital de la Pitié (Dr Mallet); and Department of Radiology, Hôpital Tenon (Dr Bigot), Paris, France.

Arch Surg. 1990;125(3):385-388. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1990.01410150107019

• Nineteen patients with middle and lower rectal carcinomas were operated on, with abdominoperineal resection in 10 patients, lower anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis in 6 patients, and colorectal anastomosis in 3 patients. The distance of the lower margin of the tumor to insertion of the levator ani on the rectal wall was correctly evaluated by computed tomography in 12(63%) of 19 patients and by magnetic resonance imaging in 13 (68%) of 19 patients, while digital examination correctly assessed the distance in 15(79%) of 19 patients. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were unable to assess extension through the rectal wall. No significant difference was observed between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in assessing extension to the perivesical fat, adjacent organs, pelvic side wall, or lymph nodes. According to the TNM classification, magnetic resonance imaging correctly staged 74% (14/19) of carcinomas, while computed tomography correctly staged 68% (13/19).

(Arch Surg. 1990;125:385-388)