Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1992 Summer;17(3):267-70.
doi: 10.1007/BF01888564.

Comparison of precontrast, postcontrast, and delayed CT scanning for the staging of rectal carcinoma

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of precontrast, postcontrast, and delayed CT scanning for the staging of rectal carcinoma

E B Skriver et al. Gastrointest Radiol. 1992 Summer.

Abstract

An attempt is made to establish the most appropriate examination procedure for staging rectal carcinoma by computed tomography (CT). Twenty-two patients with rectal carcinoma had CT performed preoperatively. The following three CT sequences were performed in all patients: a precontrast scan with 10-mm slices; a rapid sequence scan with 5-mm slices during bolus injection of contrast medium; and a postcontrast scan after a 10-min delay. Tumor extension and the presence of perirectal lymph nodes were evaluated separately and independently in all three CT sequences according to the TNM classification. All patients had surgical follow-up and the CT scans were compared to the surgical and histopathological findings. There was no significant difference in diagnostic outcome in the three CT procedures. Information obtained by frontal and lateral scout views were compared, and the lateral scout view proved more informative than the frontal scout view. For staging rectal carcinoma, narrow slice scanning and intravenous contrast media are superfluous and should be reserved for special cases. We recommend the use of lateral scout views.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

References

    1. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1985 Jan-Feb;26(1):45-55 - PubMed
    1. Br J Surg. 1986 Dec;73(12 ):1015-7 - PubMed
    1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985 Mar;144(3):577-9 - PubMed
    1. Radiology. 1989 Feb;170(2):319-22 - PubMed
    1. Gastrointest Radiol. 1989 Fall;14 (4):345-8 - PubMed

Publication types