Imaging of rectal cancer

Evolution of therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Rectal cancer is a prevalent disease worldwide. The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Studies have been done to determine the best sequence of treatments to improve survival, cure rate and long term toxicity profile. In this paper, we will review the literature regarding the evolution of LARC treatment.

Progress in the diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: a review

Historically, the chief focus of lymph node metastasis research has been molecular and clinical studies of a few essential pathways and genes. Recent years have seen a rapid accumulation of massive omics and imaging data catalyzed by the rapid development of advanced technologies. This rapid increase in data has driven improvements in the accuracy of diagnosis of lymph node metastasis, and its analysis further demands new methods and the opportunity to provide novel insights for basic research. In fact, the combination of omics data, imaging data, clinical medicine, and diagnostic methods has led to notable advances in our basic understanding and transformation of lymph node metastases in rectal cancer. Higher levels of integration will require a concerted effort among data scientists and clinicians. Herein, we review the current state and future challenges to advance the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in rectal cancer.

The ability of magnetic resonance imaging to predict lymph node metastases and the risk of recurrence in rectal cancer

AIM

This study aimed to examine the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detected lymph nodes in rectal cancer.

METHOD

We evaluated 806 rectal cancer patients consecutively operated on between 2015 and 2018 at Helsinki University Hospital. In total, 485 patients met the inclusion criteria of presenting with stage I-III disease and were intended for curative treatment at the time of diagnosis. The effect of MRI-detected clinical lymph node status (cN) on cumulative overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI-lymphnode negativity was 74.8%. Positive predictive value of lymph node metastasis was only 48.6%. In the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, OS (p = 0.989), DSS (p = 0.911), and DFS (p = 0.109) did not significantly differ according to MRI nodal status. However, cumulative disease-free survival significantly (p < 0.001) differed according to the histopathological lymph node metastasis status (pN).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI detected lymph node positivity appears insufficiently precise and cannot predict disease recurrence or survival. Therefore, it should not serve as an independent risk factor when considering neoadjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer patients.

Intra- and interobserver agreement of rectal cancer staging with MRI

Background

Reliable preoperative staging of rectal cancers is crucial for treatment decision making.

Purpose

To assess the intra- and inter-observer agreement of rectal cancer staging, including the sub-categories, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Material and Methods

The study includes 85 patients (35.3% women; mean age = 62.2 ± 11.2 years) who underwent MRI for rectal cancer staging between August 2020 and April 2021. All the stored images were evaluated independently by two radiologists with 10–15 years of experience. For intra-observer agreement, the evaluations were done two months apart. Analyses were made using kappa, prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), where appropriate.

Results

There was a substantial inter-observer agreement for tumor localization (kappa = 0.665, PABAK = 0.682), mesorectal fascia invasion (kappa = 0.663, PABAK = 0.822), internal and external sphincter involvement (kappa 0.804 and 0.751, PABAK 0.859 and 0.929, respectively), and moderate to substantial agreement for M-staging (kappa = 0.451, PABAK = 0.742) and extramural vascular invasion (kappa = 0.569, PABAK = 0.741). There was also a good inter-observer agreement for T staging and N staging (ICC = 0.862, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.788–0.911; and ICC = 0.841, 95% CI = 0.595–0.922, respectively). As expected, intra-observer agreement was better than inter-observer agreement.

Conclusion

Intra- and inter-observer agreement for MRI staging of rectal cancers using the structured reporting template is good.

How We Treat Localized Rectal Cancer-An Institutional Paradigm for Total Neoadjuvant Therapy

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT)-the neoadjuvant employment of radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation (CRT) as well as chemotherapy (CHT) before surgery-may lead to increased pathological complete response (pCR) rates as well as a reduction in the risk of distant metastases in locally advanced rectal cancer. Furthermore, increased response rates may allow organ-sparing strategies in a growing number of patients with low rectal cancer and upfront immunotherapy has shown very promising early results in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high/mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors. Despite the lack of a generally accepted treatment standard, we strongly believe that existing data is sufficient to adopt the concept of TNT and immunotherapy in clinical practice. The treatment algorithm presented in the following is based on our interpretation of the current data and should serve as a practical guide for treating physicians-without any claim to general validity.

Treatment of clinical T1 rectal cancer in the Netherlands; a population-based overview of clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Local excision is increasingly used as an alternative treatment for radical surgery in patients with early stage clinical T1 (cT1) rectal cancer. This study provides an overview of incidence, staging accuracy and treatment strategies in patients with cT1 rectal cancer in the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with cT1 rectal cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2018 were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. An overview per time period (2005-2009, 2010-2014 and 2015-2018) of the incidence and various treatment strategies used, e.g. local excision (LE) or major resection, with/without neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), were given and trends over time were analysed using the Chi Square for Trend test. In addition, accuracy of tumour staging was described, compared and analysed over time.

RESULTS

In total, 3033 patients with cT1 rectal cancer were diagnosed. The incidence of cT1 increased from 540 patients in 2005-2009 to 1643 patients in 2015-2018. There was a significant increased use of LE. In cT1N0/X patients, 9.2% received NAT, 25.5% were treated by total mesorectal excision (TME) and 11.4% received a completion TME (cTME) following prior LE. Overall accuracy in tumour staging (cT1 = pT1) was 77.3%, yet significantly worse in cN1/2 patients, as compared to cN0 patients (44.8% vs 77.9%, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Over time, there was an increase in the incidence of cT1 tumours. Both the use of neoadjuvant therapy and TME surgery in clinically node negative patients decreased significantly. Clinical accuracy in T1 tumour staging improved over time, but remained significantly worse in clinical node positive patients.

Influence of incorrect staging of colorectal carcinoma on oncological outcome: are we playing safely?

Accurate preoperative staging of colorectal cancers is critical in selecting patients for neoadjuvant therapy prior to resection. Inaccurate staging, particularly understaging, may lead to involved resection margins and poor oncological outcomes. Our aim is to determine preoperative imaging accuracy of colorectal cancers compared to histopathology and define the effect of inaccurate staging on patient selection for neoadjuvant treatment(NT). Staging and treatment were determined for patients undergoing colorectal resections for adenocarcinomas in a single tertiary centre(2016-2020). Data were obtained for 948 patients. The staging was correct for both T and N stage in 19.68% of colon cancer patients. T stage was under-staged in 18.58%. At resection, 23 patients (3.36%) had involved pathological margins; only 7 of which had been predicted by pre-operative staging. However, the staging was correct for both T and N stage in 53.85% of rectal cancer patients. T stage was understaged in 26.89%. Thirteen patients had involved(R1)margins; T4 had been accurately predicted in all of these cases. There was a general trend in understaging both the tumor and lymphonodal involvement (T p < 0.00001 N p < 0.00001) causing a failure in administrating NT in 0.1% of patients with colon tumor, but not with rectal cancer. Preoperative radiological staging tended to understage both colonic and rectal cancers. In colonic tumours this may lead to a misled opportunity to treat with neoadjuvant therapy, resulting in involved margins at resection.