Valk et al are certainly to be congratulated for their fervent enthusiasm for this new privately held technology. The skeptic might assume that since these private physicians are based in a PET imaging center, they would bias a study by design to favor PET scan; however, it is important to put aside all such potentially cynical prejudices in favor of academic interpretation of a large number of patients carefully assessed by a variety of means and numerous statistical tests. It is particularly important to do so in light of the scope of this problem. Colorectal cancer is the second most common noncutaneous malignant neoplasm, anticipated to affect approximately 165,000 people this year.1 It can also be anticipated that more than 40% of patients, despite seemingly curative resections, will experience a recurrence of their disease.2- 4 The most common sites of recurrence are the pelvis, liver, and lungs. Over the past several decades, numerous new technologies have been introduced in an attempt to better identify and therefore more appropriately treat patients with recurrences in each of these areas. The primary tool for both preoperative and postoperative evaluation of patients with rectal carcinoma is rectal ultrasonography.5- 7 The potential problem with rectal ultrasound is that whether the focal length is 5.0, 7.0, 7.5, or 10.0 MHz, the best clarity is in the layers of the rectal wall as opposed to within the pelvis itself. Local recurrences tend to occur not at the suture line or anastomosis but actually in the pelvis.8 Therefore, any intraluminal evidence of tumor tends to show the tip of the iceberg rather than the major nidus of tumor.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Surgery editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clarifying Your Question
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Three Examples of Question Clarification
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.