Magnetic resonance imaging-detected lymph nodes close to the mesorectal fascia are rarely a cause of margin involvement after total mesorectal excision

Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin After Curative Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, positive circumferential resection margin has been found to be an indicator of advanced disease with a high risk of distant recurrence rather than local recurrence.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of the circumferential resection margin on long-term oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter, propensity score-matched (2:1) analysis comparing the positive and negative circumferential resection margins.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 5 high-volume centers in Spain.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with curative intent for middle-low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2014 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were local recurrence, distant recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

The unmatched initial cohort consisted of 1599 patients, of whom 4.9% had a positive circumferential resection margin. After matching, 234 patients were included (156 with a negative circumferential margin and 78 with a positive circumferential margin). The median follow-up period was 52.5 (22.0-69.5) months. Local recurrence was significantly higher in patients with a positive circumferential margin (33.3% vs 11.5%; p < 0.001). Distant recurrence was similar in both groups (46.2% vs 42.3%; p = 0.651). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival (48.6% vs 43.6%; p = 0.14). Disease-free survival was lower in patients with a positive circumferential margin (36.1% vs 52.3%; p = 0.026).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design. The different neoadjuvant treatment options were not included in the propensity score.

CONCLUSIONS

The positive circumferential resection margin was associated with a higher local recurrence rate and worse disease-free survival in comparison with the negative circumferential resection margin. However, the positive circumferential resection margin was not a prognostic indicator of distant recurrence and overall survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 .

VALOR PRONSTICO DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA CURATIVA PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO UN ANLISIS MULTICNTRICO EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN

ANTECEDENTES:En los últimos años, se ha encontrado que el margen de resección circunferencial positivo es un indicador de enfermedad avanzada con alto riesgo de recurrencia a distancia más que de recurrencia local.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue analizar el impacto pronóstico del margen de resección circunferencial sobre la recidiva local, a distancia y las tasas de supervivencia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis multicéntrico emparejado por puntaje de propensión 2: 1 que comparó el margen de resección circunferencial positivo y negativo.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en 5 centros Españoles de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a escisión total de mesorrecto con intención curativa por cáncer de recto medio-bajo entre 2006-2014. Las características clínicas e histológicas se utilizaron para el emparejamiento.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultadoes principales fueron la recurrencia local, la recurrencia a distancia, la supervivencia global y libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La cohorte inicial no emparejada consistió en 1599 pacientes; El 4,9% tuvo un margen de resección circunferencial positivo. Tras el emparejamiento se incluyeron 234 pacientes (156 con margen circunferencial negativo y 78 con margen circunferencial positivo). La mediana del período de seguimiento fue de 52,5 meses (22,0-69,5). La recurrencia local fue significativamente mayor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 33,3% vs 11,5% [HR 3,2; IC 95%: 1,83-5,43; p < 0,001]. La recidiva a distancia fue similar en ambos grupos (46,2 % frente a 42,3 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,78-1,90; p = 0,651]. No hubo diferencias significativas en la supervivencia global a 5 años (48,6 % frente a 43,6 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,92-1,78; p = 0,14]; La supervivencia libre de enfermedad fue menor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 36,1% vs 52,3% [HR 1,5; IC 95%: 1,05-2,06; p = 0,026].LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el diseño retrospectivo. Las diferentes opciones de tratamientos neoadyuvantes no se han incluido en la puntuación de propensión.CONCLUSIONES:El margen de resección circunferencial positivo se asocia con una mayor tasa de recurrencia local y peor supervivencia libre de enfermedad en comparación con el margen de resección circunferencial negativo. Sin embargo, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo no fue un indicador pronóstico de recidiva a distancia ni de supervivencia global. Consulte el Video del Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 . (Traducción- Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Preoperative computed tomography assessment of circumferential resection margin in retroperitonealized colon cancer predicts disease-free survival

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this retrospective study was to predict circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement on preoperative CT, and prognostic impact of CRM assessment by CT (ctCRM) in patients with retroperitonealized colon cancer.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent resection for ascending or descending colon cancer between July 2010 and February 2013. Positive ctCRM was defined as tumor distance to the retromesenteric plane of ≤ 1 mm. The origin of positive CRM was divided into primary tumor or other tumor components including lymph nodes, tumor deposits, or extramural venous invasions. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative factors to predict pathologic CRM (pCRM). A Cox proportional hazards model was used in multivariable analysis to determine the preoperative factors affecting disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

A total of 274 patients (mean age, 64.0 years ± 11.0 [standard deviation]; 157 men) with retroperitonealized colon cancer were evaluated. Of 274 patients, 67 patients (24.5%) had positive CRM on surgical pathology. The accuracy of preoperative CT in predicting pCRM was 79.6% (218/274). Among preoperative factors, only CRM assessment on CT was independently associated with pCRM (p < 0.001). Positive ctCRM by primary tumor was an independent factor for DFS (HR, 3.362 [1.714-6.593]) and systemic recurrence (HR, 3.715 [1.787-7.724], but not for local recurrence on multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative CT can accurately predict pCRM, and positive ctCRM by primary tumor is an independent risk factor for DFS and systemic recurrence, but not for local recurrence in retroperitonealized colon cancer.

KEY POINTS

• Preoperative CT can predict pathologic circumferential resection margin (CRM) with approximately 80% of accuracy in patients with retroperitonealized colon cancer. • Positive CRM by a primary tumor on preoperative CT is a poor prognostic factor for disease-free survival and systemic recurrence in patients with retroperitonealized colon cancer. • CRM involvement on CT was not associated with local recurrence in patients with retroperitonealized colon cancer.

Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus

Objectives

To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them.

Methods

A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists.

Results

Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes.

Conclusions

The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

Key Points

• Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer.

• A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes.

• These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

Structured and shared MRI staging lexicon and report of rectal cancer: A consensus proposal by the French Radiology Group (GRERCAR) and Surgical Group (GRECCAR) for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To develop French guidelines by experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evidence-based data and opinions of experts of GRERCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Radiologie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Imaging Research Group]) and GRECCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Chirurgie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Surgery Research Group]) were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as "Recommended" versus "Not recommended" (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts).

RESULTS

Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed.

CONCLUSION

These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer staging with MRI.

MRI for Rectal Cancer: Staging, mrCRM, EMVI, Lymph Node Staging and Post-Treatment Response

Rectal cancer is a relatively common malignancy in the United States. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of rectal cancer has evolved tremendously in recent years, and has become a key component of baseline staging and treatment planning. In addition to assessing the primary tumor and locoregional lymph nodes, rectal MRI can be used to help with risk stratification by identifying high-risk features such as extramural vascular invasion and can assess treatment response for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. As the practice of rectal MRI continues to expand further into academic centers and private practices, standard MRI protocols, and reporting are critical. In addition, it is imperative that the radiologists reading these cases work closely with surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists to ensure we are providing the best possible care to patients. This review aims to provide a broad overview of the role of MRI for rectal cancer.

MRI Staging in an Evolving Management Paradigm for Rectal Cancer, From the AJR Special Series on Cancer Staging

The treatment of rectal cancer centers around the distinct but related goals of management of distant metastases and management of local disease. Optimal local management requires attention to the primary tumor and its anatomic relationship to surrounding pelvic structures, with the goal of minimizing local recurrence (LR). High-resolution MRI is ideally suited for this purpose; application of MRI-based criteria in conjunction with optimized surgical and pathologic techniques have successfully reduced LR rates. This success has led to a shift away from using the TNM-based National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as the sole determinant of whether a patient receives neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The new model uses a hybrid approach for assigning risk categories that combines elements of the TNM staging system with MRI-based anatomic features. These risk categories incorporate tumor proximity to the circumferential resection margin, T category, distance to the anal verge and presence of extramural venous invasion, to classify rectal tumors as low, intermediate, or high-risk. This approach has been validated by accumulated data from numerous multi-institutional studies. This review illustrates key anatomic concepts, depicts common interpretive errors and pitfalls, and discusses ongoing limitations; these insights should guide radiologists in optimal rectal MRI interpretation.

Staging of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Beyond TME

The management of rectal cancer is complex and continually evolving. With advancements in technology and the use of multidisciplinary teams to guide the treatment decision making, staging, oncologic, and functional outcomes are improving, and the management is moving toward personalized treatment strategies to optimize each individual patient's outcomes. Key in this evolution is imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as the dominant method of pelvic imaging in rectal cancer, and use of MRI for staging is best practice in multiple international guidelines. MRI allows a noninvasive assessment of the tumor site, relationship to surrounding structures, and provides highly accurate rectal cancer staging, which is necessary for determining the appropriate treatment strategy. However, the applications of MRI extend far beyond pretreatment staging. MRI can be used to predict outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer and guide the surgical or nonsurgical plan, serving as a predictive and prognostic biomarker. With continued MRI hardware improvement and new sequence development, MRI may offer new perspectives in the assessment of treatment response and new innovations that could provide better insight into the staging, restaging, and outcomes with rectal cancer.

Imaging and Management of Rectal Cancer

High-resolution phased array external magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the first investigation of choice in rectal cancer for local staging, both in the primary and restaging situations. Use of MRI helps differentiate between those with good prognosis, which can be offered upfront surgery and the poor prognostic cases where treatment intensification is needed. MRI identified poor prognostic factors are threatened or involved mesorectal fascia, T3 tumors with >5 mm extramural spread, those with extramural vascular invasion, pelvic sidewall nodes and mucinous tumors. At restaging, use of MRI helps evaluate response and an MR tumor regression grading system is being evaluated. Complete response seen on clinical examination and endoscopy, needs confirmation on MRI using both T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted sequences to justify a "watch and wait" approach. In this subset of patients, MRI also plays a role in monitoring and detecting early regrowth. In those with partial response, MRI helps define surgical margins and can be used as a roadmap to decide between sphincter preserving surgeries and radical sphincter sacrificing surgeries; pelvic exenteration and pelvic sidewall lymph node dissection. Poor responders on MRI may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Use of MRI thus helps in individualizing treatment in rectal cancer.

Current controversy, confusion, and imprecision in the use and interpretation of rectal MRI

There has been a rapid increase in the utilization of MRI in rectal cancer staging in the USA essentially replacing endorectal ultrasound and mimicking the trend in Europe seen in the 1990s and 2000s. Accompanying this trend, there is a demand, and recognized need, for greater precision and clarification of confusing, misunderstood and poorly understood concepts, facts, statements and nomenclature regarding rectal cancer and the use of pelvic MRI for diagnosis. As such, this Review, part evidence-based and part expert opinion, will attempt to elucidate and clarify several concepts the authors have encountered in 25 years of imaging rectal cancer, focusing on MRI.

Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and 3D endoanal ultrasound in detection, staging and assessment post treatment, in anal cancer

We compared Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and 3D Endoanal Ultrasound (EAUS) imaging performance to confirm anal carcinoma and to monitor treatment response.58 patients with anal cancer were retrospectively enrolled. All patients underwent clinical examination, anoscopic examination; EAUS and contrast-enhanced MRI study before and after treatment. Four radiologists evaluated the presence of lesions, using a 4-point confidence scale, features of the lesion and nodes on EAUS images, T1-weighted (T1-W), T2-weighted (T2-W) and diffusion-weighted images (DWI) signal intensity (SI), the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map for nodes and lesion, as well as enhancement pattern during dynamic MRI were assessed.All lesions were detected by EAUS while MRI detected 93.1% of anal cancer. MRI showed a good correlation with EAUS, anoscopy and clinical examination. The residual tissue not showed significant difference in EAUS assessment and T2-W SI in pre and post treatment. We found significant difference in dynamic study, in SI of DWI, in ADC map and values among responder's patients in pre and post treatment. The neoplastic nodes were hypoecoic on EAUS, with hyperintense signal on T2-W sequences and hypointense signal on T1-W. The neoplastic nodes showed SI on DWI sequences and ADC value similar to anal cancer. We found significant difference in nodes status in pre and post therapy on DWI data.3D EAUS and MRI are accurate techniques in anal cancer staging, although EAUS is more accurate than MRI for T1 stage. MRI allows correct detection of neoplastic nodes and can properly stratify patients into responders or non responders.

Essential Items for Structured Reporting of Rectal Cancer MRI: 2016 Consensus Recommendation from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology

High-resolution rectal MRI plays a crucial role in evaluating rectal cancer by providing multiple prognostic findings and imaging features that guide proper patient management. Quality reporting is critical for accurate effective communication of the information among multiple disciplines, for which a systematic structured approach is beneficial. Existing guides on reporting of rectal MRI are divergent on some issues, largely reflecting the differences in overall management of rectal cancer patients between the United States and Europe. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) study group for rectal cancer has developed an expert consensus recommendation regarding essential items for structured reporting of rectal cancer MRI using a modified Delphi method. This recommendation aims at presenting an up-to-date, evidence-based, practical, structured reporting template that can be readily adopted in daily clinical practice. In addition, a thorough explanation of the clinical and scientific rationale underlying the reporting items and their formats is provided. This KSAR recommendation may serve as a useful tool to help achieve more standardized optimal care for rectal cancer patients using rectal MRI.

Histopathological and radiological reporting in rectal cancer: concepts and controversies, facts and fantasies

In rectal cancer patients, the stage of the disease, local spread and distant metastases status drive the treatment decisions to be made. Histopathology remains the gold standard, but preoperative staging, particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is pivotal for defining surgical planes and finding patients who could potentially benefit from preoperative regimes. Unfortunately, due to a lack of awareness, expertise and practise the quality of rectal cancer MRI and histopathology reporting varies among centres. This paper highlights the most important and frequently occurring radiological and histopathological discrepancies/mistakes to be aware of.

Radiological assessment of anal cancer: an overview and update

Anal cancer is uncommon neoplasm with an incidence of 2 new cases per 100,000 per year in the USA, accounting approximately 0.4 % of all tumors and 2.5 % of gastrointestinal malignancies. An early detection of the anal cancer is crucial for the patient management, whereas the diagnosis at an early stage allows conservative management with sphincter sparing, on the contrary a delays in diagnosis might lead to an advance cancer stage at presentation with worst survival. According to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Anal Carcinoma guidelines the patients should be subjected to a careful clinical examination, including a digital rectal examination (DRE), an anoscopic examination, and palpation of inguinal nodes. The guidelines recommended for the assessment of T stage, only a clinical examination, while the role of imaging techniques, as Magnetic Resonance imaging (MRI) is limited to the identification of regional nodes. Instead, the endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) is not recommended. This paper presents an overview and some updates about 3D EAUS and MRI in detection, staging and assessment post therapy of anal cancer patients.

Imaging Advances in Colorectal Cancer

The optimal management of rectal cancer is achieved through a shared multidisciplinary decision making process with accurate staging by imaging being critical for treatment planning. Good quality, high-resolution MRI has become the imaging gold standard as it allows consistent staging and stratification of patients into distinct prognostic groups according to MR-findings. Imaging features other than T and N have been proven to influence patient outcomes, and increasingly these features are taken into consideration when determining treatment options: distance of tumour to the potential circumferential margin (CRM), presence of tumour within the extramural rectal vessels (EMVI), discontinuous tumour deposits (N1c), relationship to the intersphincteric plane in low rectal tumours and to pelvic compartments in advanced disease. The presence or absence of proven adverse MR features should be included in the MRI report and shared with the patient when treatment choices are offered. MRI enables the identification of high risk tumours where the use of neoadjuvant therapy is justified and is a robust method of identifying patients with a strong likelihood of complete response after preoperative treatment.

Magnetic resonance imaging of rectal and anal cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging plays a pivotal role in the imaging and staging of rectal and anal carcinomas. Rectal adenocarcinomas and anal squamous cell carcinomas behave differently, and are staged and treated differently. This article attempts to explain these 2 entities, which share the same regions of interest, in a comprehensive manner.

Rectal cancer staging: focus on the prognostic significance of the findings described by high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging

High-resolution (HR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an indispensable tool for multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) addressing rectal cancer. It provides anatomic information for surgical planning and allows patients to be stratified into different groups according to the risk of local and distant recurrence. One of the objectives of the MDT is the preoperative identification of high-risk patients who will benefit from neoadjuvant treatment. For this reason, the correct evaluation of the circumferential resection margin (CRM), the depth of tumor spread beyond the muscularis propria, extramural vascular invasion and nodal status is of the utmost importance. Low rectal tumors represent a special challenge for the MDT, because decisions seek a balance between oncologic safety, in the pursuit of free resection margins, and the patient's quality of life, in order to preserve sphincter function. At present, the exchange of information between the different specialties involved in dealing with patients with rectal cancer can rank the contribution of colleagues, auditing their work and incorporating knowledge that will lead to a better understanding of the pathology. Thus, beyond the anatomic description of the images, the radiologist's role in the MDT makes it necessary to know the prognostic value of the findings that we describe, in terms of recurrence and survival, because these findings affect decision making and, therefore, the patients' life. In this review, the usefulness of HR MRI in the initial staging of rectal cancer and in the evaluation of neoadjuvant treatment, with a focus on the prognostic value of the findings, is described as well as the contribution of HR MRI in assessing patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence of rectal cancer.

Magnetic resonance imaging of rectal cancer

Optimal treatment decisions for patients with rectal cancer are based on knowledge of tumor characteristics and prognostic features and any initial treatment must aim to reduce the risk of both local and distant recurrence. The radiologist has become an increasingly important part of multidisciplinary team managing rectal cancer. The primary goal of MRI staging of rectal tumors is to identify prognostic factors in order to offer patients a tailored treatment based on individual risks. Restaging of rectal tumors using MRI after chemoradiation therapy is becoming more relevant issue, since further tailoring of treatment is increasingly being considered after the treatment.

Management of distal rectal cancer: results from a national survey

Owing to the complexity of distal rectal cancer its management requires a multidisciplinary approach. The diagnosis and the response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are not easy to assess and therefore the surgical approach is heterogeneous. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the experiences of members of the Italian Society of Surgery in diagnosis and treatment strategies for rectal cancer and compare it with international practice. A questionnaire was devised comprising 18 questions with 11 sub-items making a total of 29 questions and submitted online to all the 2,500 members of the SIC starting from July 2010. The survey was completed in June 2011. The overall response rate was 17.8 % (444). The majority of the Italian surgeons' responses were in line with the international consensus reflecting the complex management of distal rectal cancer. Other opinions, especially those on staging, diverge from the common view of MRI being the gold standard in the assessment of loco-regional diffusion of the disease and on the superiority of FDG PET-CT versus CT for systemic staging. The timing for the re-staging and for surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not reflect the international opinion. Italian surgeons are also exposed to the common difficulties encountered internationally in the management of distal rectal cancer. Probably, the implementation of an Italian rectal cancer registry and of many national and international multicentre studies may improve the management of rectal cancer in Italy.

Lymphatic drainage of the rectum, preoperative assessment and its relevance to malignant polyp and rectal cancer management

SUMMARY The importance of lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer is well recognized with regards to prognosis, staging and treatment. Accurate staging is particularly important where neoadjuvant treatment has been shown to downsize and downstage locally advanced tumors. Vascular invasion, poor differentiation and increasing depth of invasion are related to a higher risk of lymph node metastasis in early cancers while advanced, poorly differentiated and low rectal cancers are more likely to have lateral pelvic sidewall nodal involvement. Nodal staging is crucial in the management of malignant rectal polyps, as is the deferral of surgery in patients who have a complete clinical and radiological response to chemoradiotherapy. In all of these situations nodal staging is vital and warrants ongoing evaluation to improve its accuracy.

Clinical impact of lymph node status in rectal cancer

Lymph node status at the time of diagnosis remains one of the principal indicators of prognosis in patients with rectal cancer. Involvement of loco-regional lymph nodes is relevant to surgical and clinical oncologists and continues to impact significantly upon local and systemic management strategies, in both neo-adjuvant and adjuvant settings. In this review, the clinical impact of lymph node status in the surgical management of rectal cancer is considered, with particular reference to the significance of lymphadenectomy and the potential implications for rectal tumours amenable to trans-anal excision. Current standards of care are reviewed and the extent to which the determination of lymph node status influences oncological decisions regarding neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapies are discussed with areas of controversy highlighted.