Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/40789

Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAbreu, Soraia Filipa Macadopor
dc.contributor.authorMartins, Sandrapor
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-14T17:39:30Z-
dc.date.available2016-03-14T17:39:30Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.date.submitted2014-12-
dc.identifier.citationAbreu, Soraia Filipa Macado, & Martins, Sandra Fátima Fernandes. (2015). Preoperative staging of rectal cancer with MRI: correlation with pathologic staging. Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro), 35(2), 77-82por
dc.identifier.issn2237-9363por
dc.identifier.issn2317-6423por
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/40789-
dc.description.abstract[INTRODUCTION] An accurate preoperative rectal cancer staging is crucial to the correct management of the disease. Despite great controversy around this issue, pelvic magnetic resonance (RM) is said to be the imagiologic standard modality. This work aimed to evaluate magnetic resonance accuracy in preoperative rectal cancer staging comparing with the anatomopathological results. METHODS We calculated sensibility, specificity, positive (VP positive) and negative (VP negative) predictive values for each T and N. We evaluated the concordance between both methods of staging using the Cohen weighted K (Kw), and through ROC curves, we evaluated magnetic resonance accuracy in rectal cancer staging. RESULTS 41 patients met the inclusion criteria. We achieved an efficacy of 43.9% for T and 61% for N staging. The respective sensibility, specificity, positive and negative predictive values are 33.3%, 94.7%, 33.3% and 94.7% for T1; 62.5%, 32%, 37.0% and 57.1% for T2; 31.8%, 79%, 63.6% and 50% for T3 and 27.8%, 87%, 62.5% and 60.6% for N. We obtained a poor concordance for T and N staging and the anatomopathological results. The ROC curves indicated that magnetic resonance is ineffective in rectal cancer staging. CONCLUSION Magnetic resonance has a moderate efficacy in rectal cancer staging and the major difficulty is in differentiating T2 and T3.por
dc.description.sponsorship(undefined)por
dc.language.isoengpor
dc.publisherElsevierpor
dc.rightsopenAccesspor
dc.subjectRectal cancerpor
dc.subjectPelvic magnetic resonancepor
dc.subjectAccuracypor
dc.subjectSensibilitypor
dc.subjectSpecificitypor
dc.subjectSpecificitypor
dc.titlePreoperative staging of rectal cancer with MRI: correlation with pathologic stagingpor
dc.typearticle-
dc.peerreviewedyespor
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2237936315000313por
sdum.publicationstatuspublishedpor
oaire.citationStartPage77por
oaire.citationEndPage82por
oaire.citationIssue2por
oaire.citationTitleJournal of Coloproctologypor
oaire.citationVolume35por
dc.date.updated2016-03-01T16:13:49Z-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcol.2015.02.005por
dc.subject.fosCiências Médicas::Medicina Básicapor
sdum.journalJournal of Coloproctologypor
Appears in Collections:ICVS - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais com Referee

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
1-s2.0-s2237936315000313-main.pdf586,62 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu ORCID