Can Post-Treatment MRI Features Predict Pathological Circumferential Resection Margin (pCRM) Involvement in Low Rectal Tumors

Abdominoperineal Resection for T4 Low Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy-Are the Outcomes Acceptable?

INTRODUCTION

There is no clear consensus on using the response MRI as opposed to the pretreatment MRI for surgical planning in cT4 low rectal cancer. The objective of this study is to determine the safety of using response MRI in surgical planning for T4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of abdominoperineal resections conducted at a single tertiary cancer center. Patients undergoing an abdominoperineal resection were divided into 2 groups: group A (clinical T3, mesorectal fascia positive) and group B (clinical T4), and propensity matching was used to account for uneven distribution of baseline characteristics. Primary outcome was the rate of pathological circumferential resection margin positivity. Secondary outcomes were survival outcomes and recurrence patterns.

RESULTS

There were 237 patients in group A and 127 in group B, in the unmatched cohort, with a significantly higher number of females (43.3% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.005) and anterior circumferential resection margin positivity (68.5% vs. 49%, p < 0.001), with a lower number of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy in group B (38.6% vs. 49.8%, p = 0.041). After propensity matching baseline characters were comparable. There was a higher percentage of extended-total mesorectal excisions in group B (58.5% vs. 40.5%, p = 0.004). The rate of pathological circumferential positivity was comparable in both groups (20/168 in group A {11.9%} vs. 13/107 in group B {12.1%}, p = 0.951) with no impact of group on circumferential resection margin positivity on univariate (OR 1.023, p = 0.951) or multivariate regression (OR 0.993, p = 0.987). Both the DFS (median DFS 39 months vs. 54 months, p = 0.970) and OS (3-year OS 72% vs. 67%, p = 0.798) were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

For T4 low rectal cancers, post-treatment MRI can be used for surgical planning without any detriment in pathological or long-term oncological outcomes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-024-02028-3.

Imaging and Metabolic Diagnostic Methods in the Stage Assessment of Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer (RC) is a prevalent malignancy with significant morbidity and mortality rates. The accurate staging of RC is crucial for optimal treatment planning and patient outcomes. This review aims to summarize the current literature on imaging and metabolic diagnostic methods used in the stage assessment of RC. Various imaging modalities play a pivotal role in the initial evaluation and staging of RC. These include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and endorectal ultrasound (ERUS). MRI has emerged as the gold standard for local staging due to its superior soft tissue resolution and ability to assess tumor invasion depth, lymph node involvement, and the presence of extramural vascular invasion. CT imaging provides valuable information about distant metastases and helps determine the feasibility of surgical resection. ERUS aids in assessing tumor depth, perirectal lymph nodes, and sphincter involvement. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each diagnostic modality is essential for accurate staging and treatment decisions in RC. Furthermore, the integration of multiple imaging and metabolic methods, such as PET/CT or PET/MRI, can enhance diagnostic accuracy and provide valuable prognostic information. Thus, a literature review was conducted to investigate and assess the effectiveness and accuracy of diagnostic methods, both imaging and metabolic, in the stage assessment of RC.

Predicting the Feasibility of Curative Resection in Low Rectal Cancer: Insights from a Prospective Observational Study on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accuracy

Background and Objectives: A positive pathological circumferential resection margin is a key prognostic factor in rectal cancer surgery. The point of this prospective study was to see how well different MRI parameters could predict a positive pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) in people who had been diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma, either on their own or when used together. Materials and Methods: Between November 2019 and February 2023, a total of 112 patients were enrolled in this prospective study and followed up for a 36-month period. MRI predictors such as circumferential resection margin (mCRM), presence of extramural venous invasion (mrEMVI), tumor location, and the distance between the tumor and anal verge, taken individually or combined, were evaluated with univariate and sensitivity analyses. Survival estimates in relation to a pCRM status were also determined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: When individually evaluated, the best MRI predictor for the detection of a pCRM in the postsurgical histopathological examination is mrEMVI, which achieved a sensitivity (Se) of 77.78%, a specificity (Sp) of 87.38%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.83%, and an accuracy of 86.61%. Also, the best predictive performance was achieved by a model that comprised all MRI predictors (mCRM+ mrEMVI+ anterior location+ < 4 cm from the anal verge), with an Se of 66.67%, an Sp of 88.46%, an NPV of 96.84%, and an accuracy of 86.73%. The survival rates were significantly higher in the pCRM-negative group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of selective individual imaging predictors or combined models could be useful for the prediction of positive pCRM and risk stratification for local recurrence or distant metastasis.

Predicting Positive Radial Margin on Restaging MRI of Patients with Low Rectal Cancer: Can We Do Better?

Objective  The aim of this study was to characterize the tissue involving the margin and study if this information will affect margin prediction on restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in low rectal adenocarcinoma (LRC) patients treated with neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT). Methods  In this retrospective study of nonmetastatic LRC (distal margin <5 cm from the anal verge) treated with LCCRT followed by surgery, a radiologist blinded to outcome reread the restaging MRI and documented if the radial margin was involved by tumor, fibrosis, or mucin reaction using T2 high-resolution (HR) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The diagnostic performance of tumor-involving margin on restaging MRI was assessed using surgical histopathology as a reference. Interobserver agreement between three independent radiologists was assessed in a subset. Results  We included 133 patients (80 males and 53 females) with a mean (range) age of 44.7 (21-86) years and 82% of them had well or moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Baseline MRI showed T3 ( n  = 58) or T4 ( n  = 60) disease in 89% of the patients. The pathological margin was positive in 21% ( n  = 28) cases. In restaging MRI, the circumferential resection margin (CRM) ≤1 mm in 75.1% ( n  = 100) cases and MRI predicted tumor, fibrosis, and mucin reaction at the margin in 60, 34, and 6%, respectively, and histopathology showed tumor cells in 33, 14.7, and 16.6% of them, respectively. LRC with tumor-involving margin and bad response (MR tumor regression grade [mr-TRG] 3-5) on restaging MRI had fourfold increased risk of positive pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM). There was moderate and fair inter-reader agreement for the tissue type involving the CRM ( κ  = 0.471) and mr-TRG ( κ  = 0.266), p  < 0.05. The use of both distance criteria and tumor-involving margins improved the diagnostic accuracy for margin prediction from 39 to 66% on restaging MRI. Conclusions  Margin prediction on restaging MRI can be improved by characterizing the tissue type involving the margin in low rectal cancer patients. The inter-reader agreement was moderate for determining the tissue type.

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group's practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

METHODS

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

RESULTS

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts' opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as "strong or weak", based on the GRADE framework.

CONCLUSION

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons' community in India.

MRI at Restaging After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer Overestimates Circumferential Resection Margin Proximity as Determined by Comparison With Whole-Mount Pathology

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend restaging with MRI after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, but the accuracy of restaging MRI in estimating circumferential margin involvement requires additional clarification.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to measure the accuracy of circumferential resection margin assessment by MRI after neoadjuvant therapy and identify characteristics associated with accuracy.

DESIGN

MRI data were retrospectively analyzed for concordance with the findings of whole-mount pathology analysis of the corresponding surgical specimens. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics associated with accuracy.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center.

PATIENTS

Included in the study were consecutive patients who underwent total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer between January 2018 and March 2020 after receiving neoadjuvant therapy and undergoing restaging with MRI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of this study included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for categorizing the circumferential resection margin as threatened; mean and paired mean differences were in proximity of the margin.

RESULTS

Of the 94 patients included in the analysis, 39 (41%) had a threatened circumferential resection margin according to MRI at restaging, but only 17 (18%) had a threatened margin based on pathology. The accuracy of MRI in identifying a threatened margin was 63.8%, with margin proximity overestimated by 0.4 cm on average. In multivariate logistic regression, anterior location of the margin and tumor proximity to the anal verge were independently associated with reduced MRI accuracy.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation was the retrospective design at a single institution.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge that MRI-based restaging after neoadjuvant therapy overestimates circumferential margin proximity may render some surgical radicality unnecessary and thereby help avoid the associated morbidity. With the recognition that MRI-based assessment of margin proximity may not be reliable for anterior margin and for distal tumors, radiologists may want to use greater caution in interpreting images of tumors with these characteristics and to acknowledge the uncertainty in their reports. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814.

LA IRM EN LA REESTADIFICACIN LUEGO DE TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN EL CNCER DE RECTO SOBRESTIMA LA PROXIMIDAD DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL SEGN LO DETERMINADO COMPARATIVAMENTE CON LA PIEZA DE ANATOMOPATOLOGA

ANTECEDENTES:Las pautas actuales recomiendan la re-estadificación por medio de la resonancia magnética luego de terapia neoadyuvante en los casos de cáncer de recto, pero la precisión de la reevaluación con la IRM para estimar el grado de implicación del margen circunferencial requiere aclaraciones adicionales.OBJETIVO:Medir el grado de exactitud en la evaluación del margen de resección circunferencial mediante resonancia magnética después de la terapia neoadyuvante e identificar las características asociadas con la precisión.DISEÑO:Se analizaron retrospectivamente los datos de resonancia magnética para determinar la concordancia entre los hallazgos del análisis de la pieza de anatamopatología y las muestras quirúrgicas correspondientes. Se realizó el análisis de regresión logística univariada y multivariada para identificar las características asociadas con la exactitud.AJUSTE:Centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Todos aquellos que se sometieron consecutivamente a una excisión total del mesorrecto por cáncer rectal entre Enero 2018 y Febrero 2020 luego de recibir terapia neoadyuvante y someterse a una re-estadificación por imágenes de resonancia magnética (IRM).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La exactitud, la sensibilidad y especificidad; los valores predictivos positivos y negativos para categorizar el margen de resección circunferencial como amenazado; la diferencia media y las medias pareadas de proximidad a los margenes.RESULTADOS:De los 94 pacientes incluidos en el análisis, 39 (41%) tenían un margen de resección circunferencial amenazado según la resonancia magnética en la re-estadificación, pero solo 17 (18%) tenían un margen amenazado basado en la patología. La precisión de la resonancia magnética para identificar un margen amenazado fue del 63,8%, con la proximidad del margen sobreestimada en 0,4 cm en promedio. En la regresión logística multivariada, la ubicación anterior de los bordes de resección y la proximidad del tumor al margen anal se asociaron de forma independiente con la reducción en la precisión de la resonancia magnética.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo en una institución única.CONCLUSIONES:El saber que la re-estadificación basada en la IRM, luego de terapia neoadyuvante sobreestima la proximidad de la lesión a los márgenes circunferenciales, hace innecesaria cierta radicalidad quirúrgica complementaria, lo que ayuda a evitar morbilidad asociada. Reconociendo que la evaluación de proximidad de los márgenes de resección basada en la resonancia magnética, no puede ser confiable en casos de márgenes anteriores y en casos de tumores distales. Los radiólogos recomiendan tener más precaución en la interpretación de imágenes de tumores con estas características y reconocen cierto desasosiego en sus informes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B814.