Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Ultrasound Int Open 2025; 11: a25696939
DOI: 10.1055/a-2569-6939
Original Article

Evaluating Extended Field of View Imaging for Measuring Rectal Tumor Lowest Boundary to Anal Verge Distance via Transrectal Biplane Ultrasound

Authors

  • Yan Zhang 

    1   Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN74639)

  • Lu Liang

    2   Radiology Department, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN74639)

  • Huachong Ma

    3   General Surgery Department, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN74639)

  • Jiagang Han

    3   General Surgery Department, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN74639)

  • Xiuzhang Lv

    1   Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN74639)

  • Huiyu Ge

    1   Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China (Ringgold ID: RIN74639)
Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to measure the precise distance from the lowest boundary of a rectal tumor to the anal verge (DTAV) in patients with rectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on clinical data from 70 rectal cancer patients. DTAV measurements were collected using transrectal biplane ultrasound, MRI, and colonoscopy.

Results

The difference in DTAV measurements between the mean DTAV value obtained by ultrasound (USmean) and colonoscopy exhibited a difference of 0.22 cm. In contrast, the difference between USmean and MRI was 0.48 cm, while the difference between MRI and colonoscopy was −0.26 cm. The ICC for DTAV measurements demonstrated excellent agreement, with values of 0.948 between USmean and MRI, 0.942 between USmean and colonoscopy, and 0.943 between MRI and colonoscopy. The minimum DTAV value obtained by ultrasound (USmin) was 5.05 cm, the middle DTAV value obtained by ultrasound (USmid) was 5.10 cm, and the maximum DTAV value obtained by ultrasound (USmax) was 5.30 cm. Notably, the median values of the differences in DTAV measurements between USmax and USmin, USmax and USmid, as well as USmid and USmin, were 0.2 cm, 0.1 cm, and 0.1 cm, respectively. Furthermore, the consistency of DTAV measurements between USmin and USmid, USmax and USmid, as well as USmin and USmax was excellent, with all ICC values reaching 0.999. Additionally, the radiologistʼs reassessment of MRI DTAV data showed excellent consistency with the original results, with an ICC value of 0.985.

Conclusion

Transrectal biplane ultrasound utilizing EFOV imaging technology exhibited both accuracy and reproducibility for measuring DTAV. This approach provided a highly efficient and practical clinical tool for DTAV measurement.

Keywords

rectal cancer - colonoscopy - MR imaging - transrectal biplane ultrasound - extended field of view technology


Publication History

Received: 30 September 2024

Accepted after revision: 30 March 2025

Article published online:
05 May 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Yan Zhang, Lu Liang, Huachong Ma, Jiagang Han, Xiuzhang Lv, Huiyu Ge. Evaluating Extended Field of View Imaging for Measuring Rectal Tumor Lowest Boundary to Anal Verge Distance via Transrectal Biplane Ultrasound. Ultrasound Int Open 2025; 11: a25696939.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2569-6939
 

  • References

  • 1 Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2024; 74: 12-49
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 He S, Xia C, Li H. et al. Cancer profiles in China and comparisons with the USA: a comprehensive analysis in the incidence, mortality, survival, staging, and attribution to risk factors. Science China. Life sciences 2024; 67: 122-131
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sanoff HK. Improving Treatment Approaches for Rectal Cancer. The New England journal of medicine 2022; 386: 2425-2426
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Lu S, Liu Z, Wang B. et al. High CFP score indicates poor prognosis and chemoradiotherapy response in LARC patients. Cancer Cell Int 2021; 21: 205
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rahma OE, Yothers G, Hong TS. et al. Use of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Initial Results From the Pembrolizumab Arm of a Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7: 1225-1230
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Saraf A, Roberts HJ, Wo JY. et al. Optimal Neoadjuvant Strategies for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer by Risk Assessment and Tumor Location. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022; 20: 1177-1184
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Verkuijl SJ, Hoff C, Furnee E. et al. Anastomotic Height Is a Valuable Indicator of Long-term Bowel Function Following Surgery for Rectal Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2023; 66: 221-232
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Keller DS, Paspulati R, Kjellmo A. et al. MRI-defined height of rectal tumours. Br J Surg 2014; 101: 127-132
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Capdevila J, Gomez MA, Guillot M. et al. SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for localized rectal cancer (2021). Clin Transl Oncol 2022; 24: 646-657
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM. et al. Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022; 20: 1139-1167
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bates DDB, Fuqua JL, Zheng J. et al. Measurement of rectal tumor height from the anal verge on MRI: a comparison of internal versus external anal sphincter. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46: 867-872
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Han YE, Park BJ, Sung DJ. et al. How to accurately measure the distance from the anal verge to rectal cancer on MRI: a prospective study using anal verge markers. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46: 449-458
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Navarro SM, Chen S, Farkas LM. Measuring Rectal Cancer Tumor Height: Concordance Between Clinical Examination and MRI. Dis Colon Rectum 2022; 65: 497-504
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Basendowah MH, Ezzat MA, Khayyat AH. et al. Comparison of flexible endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging in determining the tumor height in rectal cancer. Cancer Rep (Hoboken) 2023; 6: e1705
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Shen J, Lu S, Qu R. et al. A boundary-guided transformer for measuring distance from rectal tumor to anal verge on magnetic resonance images. Patterns (N Y) 2023; 4: 100711
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hildebrandt U, Feifel G. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer by intrarectal ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 1985; 28: 42-46
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Park C, Cho HY, Kang CK. Investigation of Structural Changes in Rectus Abdominis Muscle According to Curl-Up Angle Using Ultrasound with an Extended Field of View. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Rakauskas TR, Barron SM, Ordonez Diaz T. et al. Measuring fascicle lengths of extrinsic and intrinsic thumb muscles using extended field-of-view ultrasound. J Biomech 2023; 149: 111512
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Tanaka NI, Ogawa M, Yoshiko A. et al. Validity of Extended-Field-of-View Ultrasound Imaging to Evaluate Quantity and Quality of Trunk Skeletal Muscles. Ultrasound Med Biol 2021; 47: 376-385
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kraemer M, Nabiyev S, Kraemer S. et al. Interrater Agreement of Height Assessment by Rigid Proctoscopy/Rectoscopy for Rectal Carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 2024; 67: 1018
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Jacobs L, Meek DB, van Heukelom J. et al. Comparison of MRI and colonoscopy in determining tumor height in rectal cancer. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 131-137
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Wlodarczyk J, Gaur K, Serniak N. et al How do they measure up: Assessing the height of rectal cancer with digital rectal exam, endoscopy, and MRI. Surgery in Practice and Science 2022; 10: 100096
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Serracant A, Consola B, Ballesteros E. et al. How to Study the Location and Size of Rectal Tumors That Are Candidates for Local Surgery: Rigid Rectoscopy, Magnetic Resonance, Endorectal Ultrasound or Colonoscopy? An Interobservational Study. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14
    Search in Google Scholar