Stage and size using magnetic resonance imaging and endosonography in neoadjuvantly-treated rectal cancer

Table 2 Feasibility and accuracy of the tumour node metastasis staging, with stage II as the cut-off, using magnetic resonance imaging, endosonography and a combination (combo) of assessments of lymph nodes using magnetic resonance imaging and assessments of perirectal tissue penetration using endosonography compared with the histopathology of resected specimens in 23 patients before and after chemotherapy

	MRI-pre	ERUS-pre	Combo-pre	MRI-post	ERUS-post	Combo-post
Feasibility of stage	1.00	0.81
Feasibility of size	0.97	0.74
Accuracy of differentiating stages I/II	0.65	0.70	0.74	0.65	0.78	0.83
Sensitivity of differentiating stages I/II	0.73	0.87	0.87	0.73	0.80	0.93
Specificity of differentiating stages I/II	0.5	0.38	0.50	0.50	0.75	0.62
Kappa value of differentiating stages I/II	0.23	0.26	0.40	0.23	0.53	0.58
Overstaging of differentiating stages I/II	0.17	0.22	0.17	0.17	0.087	0.13
Understaging of differentiating stages I/II	0.17	0.087	0.087	0.17	0.13	0.048
Accuracy of perirectal penetration	0.48	0.70		0.52	0.78
Accuracy of lymph node detection	0.74	0.56		0.74	0.74

The last two columns present the accuracy of the prediction of perirectal tissue penetration and lymph nodes using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endosonography (ERUS).