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

Yan Zhang; Lu Liang; Huachong Ma; Jiagang Han; Xiuzhang Lv; Huiyu Ge

doi:10.1055/a-2569-6939

Ultrasound International Open, Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (US_mean) and colonoscopy exhibited a difference of 0.22 cm. In contrast, the difference between US_mean 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 US_mean and MRI, 0.942 between US_mean and colonoscopy, and 0.943 between MRI and colonoscopy. The minimum DTAV value obtained by ultrasound (US_min) was 5.05 cm, the middle DTAV value obtained by ultrasound (US_mid) was 5.10 cm, and the maximum DTAV value obtained by ultrasound (US_max) was 5.30 cm. Notably, the median values of the differences in DTAV measurements between US_max and US_min, US_max and US_mid, as well as US_mid and US_min, were 0.2 cm, 0.1 cm, and 0.1 cm, respectively. Furthermore, the consistency of DTAV measurements between US_min and US_mid, US_max and US_mid, as well as US_min and US_max 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

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

Full Text

References

References
1 Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2024; 74: 12-49
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
3 Sanoff HK. Improving Treatment Approaches for Rectal Cancer. The New England journal of medicine 2022; 386: 2425-2426
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
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
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
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
8 Keller DS, Paspulati R, Kjellmo A. et al. MRI-defined height of rectal tumours. Br J Surg 2014; 101: 127-132
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16 Hildebrandt U, Feifel G. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer by intrarectal ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 1985; 28: 42-46
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
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
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
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
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
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
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