Comparison between 3-T magnetic resonance imaging and multi-detector row computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of rectal cancer

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of the Accuracy of Various Lymph Node Staging Criteria in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based lymph node staging remains a significant challenge in the treatment of rectal cancer. Pretreatment evaluation of lymph node metastasis guides the formulation of treatment plans. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of MRI in lymph node staging using various morphological criteria.

Methods

A systematic search of the EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases was performed. Original articles published between 2000 and January 2021 that used MRI for lymph node staging in rectal cancer were eligible. The included studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. A bivariate random-effects model was used to conduct a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Results

Thirty-seven studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of preoperative MRI for the lymph node stage were 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68–0.77), 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68–0.80), and 7.85 (95% CI, 5.78–10.66), respectively. Criteria for positive mesorectal lymph node metastasis included (A) a short-axis diameter of 5 mm, (B) morphological standard, including an irregular border and mixed-signal intensity within the lymph node, (C) a short-axis diameter of 5 mm with the morphological standard, (D) a short-axis diameter of 8 mm with the morphological standard, and (E) a short-axis diameter of 10 mm with the morphological standard. The pooled sensitivity/specificity for these criteria were 75%/64%, 81%/67%, 74%/79%, 72%/66%, and 62%/91%, respectively. There was no significant difference among the criteria in sensitivity/specificity. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve values of the fitted summary ROC indicated a diagnostic accuracy rate of 0.75–0.81.

Conclusion

MRI scans have minimal accuracy as a reference index for pretreatment staging of various lymph node staging criteria in rectal cancer. Multiple types of evidence should be used in clinical decision-making.

[Rational staging and follow-up of colorectal cancer : Do guidelines provide further help?]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors. Preoperative imaging is crucial in rectal cancer as patients can only receive optimal treatment when accurate staging is performed. The N‑staging is often difficult with the available options and must be called into question as a staging parameter.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are particularly suitable for local staging. Multiparametric MRI with diffusion imaging is indispensable for tumor follow-up.

METHODICAL INNOVATIONS

The assessment of infiltration of the mesorectal fascia is best accomplished using high-resolution MRI. In addition, extramural vascular infiltration (EMVI) has become established as another important prognostic factor. After neoadjuvant therapy and restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer, the identification and validation of prognostically relevant image parameters are prioritized. Multiparametric MRI of the rectum including diffusion imaging as well as the application of radiological and pathological scores (MR-TRG) are becoming increasingly more important in this context.

ASSESSMENT

For the radiologist it is important to become familiar with indicators of the resectability of rectal cancer and to be able to reliably read prognostically relevant imaging parameters in the tumor follow-up.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

For the practical application, the establishment of a fixed MRI protocol is essential. In addition to a guideline-compliant TNM classification, the radiologist must provide the clinician with information on infiltration of the mesorectal fascia and extramural vascular infiltration. The MR-TRGs are becoming increasingly more important in tumor follow-up.

Imaging Procedures for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Radiological imaging plays an important role in the setting of staging, follow-up, and imaging-guided treatment of colorectal carcinoma (CRC).

METHODS

This review aims to summarize the current state of the art of the different radiological imaging procedures in CRC including an overview over recently published national and European guidelines and consensus statements concerning the imaging of CRC patients.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Radiological imaging is widely embedded in national and international guidelines, and structured reporting is recommended.

Preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: accuracy of single portal venous phase multidetector computed tomography

In this study, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of single portal venous phase multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in preoperative staging of colorectal cancer. MDCT, surgery, and pathological results of 159 patients with pathologically proven colorectal adenocarcinoma were evaluated retrospectively. In T staging, the accuracy was 96% for ≤ T2 tumors, 92% for T3 tumors, and 96% for T4 tumors. In N staging, the accuracy was 68% for N0 tumors, 74% for N1 tumors, and 71% for N2 tumors. In conclusion, the accuracy of single portal venous phase MDCT is reasonably high in T staging, but it is not sufficiently high enough in N staging.

[The role of cross-sectional imaging in staging of rectal cancer]

The ongoing diversification of treatment strategies for rectal cancer justifies the demand for highly specialized radiological imaging. Currently, numerous studies have underlined the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine those parameters that are critical for therapeutic decision-making and prognosis in rectal cancer. Computed tomography (CT) does not meet the criteria of a first line diagnostic procedure with regard to local staging but will remain the workhorse in the search for distant metastases. The increasing acceptance of extended MRI-based concepts will, however, improve cost-effectiveness and simplify patient management. Response evaluation and detection of recurrent disease are the major indications for positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, which is currently not routinely recommended.

Preoperative tumour staging with multidisciplinary team assessment improves the outcome in locally advanced primary rectal cancer

AIM

Multidisciplinary team meetings have been introduced as a result of developments in preoperative radiological tumour staging and neoadjuvant treatment. Multidisciplinary team recommendations will influence treatment decisions but their effect on patient outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess outcome in relation to preoperative local and distant staging, with or without multidisciplinary team assessment.

METHODS

A population-based registry of all patients with rectal cancer, treated in the Stockholm region from 1995 to 2004, identified 303 patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer. The patients were classified into three groups: group 1, preoperative local and distant radiological tumour staging with discussion at a multidisciplinary team meeting; group 2, preoperative staging but no multidisciplinary team assessment; and group 3, no proper preoperative radiological staging.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant treatment was more prevalent in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3. The incidence of R0 resection differed significantly between the groups (52% in group 1, 43% in group 2 and 21% in group 3; P < 0.001). Local tumour control was achieved in 57%, 36%, and 19% of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P < 0.001). The estimated overall 5-year survival of patients was 30%, 28% and 12% in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative radiological tumour staging in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer and discussion at a multidisciplinary team meeting increases the proportion of patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment and cancer-specific end-points.

EUS-FNA assessment of extramesenteric lymph node status in primary rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative staging is an essential factor in the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer. The accuracy of imaging alone with CT, magnetic resonance imaging, or rigid endorectal US is poor. The addition of EUS-FNA may enhance extramesenteric lymph node metastases detection (M1 disease) and overall staging accuracy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency of extramesenteric lymph node visualization by EUS and the rate of extramesenteric lymph node metastases by FNA. Secondary goals were to evaluate the clinical, endoscopic, and sonographic features associated with extramesenteric lymph node metastases, disease progression, and overall mortality.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

Tertiary referral center.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 316 patients (13%) with primary rectal cancer over a 6-year period had M1 disease by EUS-FNA. Significant clinical, endoscopic, and sonographic features associated with extramesenteric lymph node metastases included the serum carcinoembryonic antigen level, tumor length 4 cm and longer, annularity 50% or more, sessile morphology, and lymph node size. The sensitivity and specificity of CT for extramesenteric lymph node metastases were 44% and 89%, respectively. Twenty-three of 316 rectal cancer endosonographic procedures (7.3%) were up-staged by FNA, which established extramesenteric lymph node metastases. Over a 4-year follow-up, disease progression and overall mortality of patients with extramesenteric lymph node metastases was observed in 6 patients (14.6%) and 14 patients (34%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative EUS-FNA identification of extramesenteric lymph node metastases outside of standard radiation fields or total mesorectal excision resection margins could affect medical and surgical planning.

Rectal cancer radiotherapy: towards European consensus

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

During the first decade of the 21st century several important European randomized studies in rectal cancer have been published. In order to help shape clinical practice based on best scientific evidence, the International Conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) was organized. This article summarizes the consensus about imaging and radiotherapy of rectal cancer and gives an update until May 2010.

METHODS

Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. Eight chapters were identified: epidemiology, diagnostics, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment toxicity and quality of life, follow-up, and research questions. Each chapter was subdivided by topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each committee member commented and voted, sentence by sentence three times. Sentences which did not reach agreement after voting round # 2 were openly debated during the Conference in Perugia (Italy) December 2008. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: "large consensus", "moderate consensus", "minimum consensus".

RESULTS

The total number of the voted sentences was 207. Of the 207, 86% achieved large consensus, 13% achieved moderate consensus, and only three (1%) resulted in minimum consensus. No statement was disagreed by more than 50% of members. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the members, and the majority was voted on by >85%. Considerable progress has been made in staging and treatment, including radiation treatment of rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This Consensus Conference represents an expertise opinion process that may help shape future programs, investigational protocols, and guidelines for staging and treatment of rectal cancer throughout Europe. In spite of substantial progress, many research challenges remain.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in rectal cancer: a comprehensive review

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has established itself as the primary method for local staging in patients with rectal cancer. This is due to several factors, most importantly because of the ability to assess the status of circumferential resection margin. There are several newer developments being introduced continuously, such as diffusion-weighted imaging and imaging with 3 T. Assessment of loco-regional lymph nodes has also been investigated extensively using different approaches, but more work needs to be done. Finally, evaluation of tumours during or after preoperative treatment is becoming an everyday reality. All these new aspects prompt a review of the most recent advances and opinions. In this review, a comprehensive overview of the current status of MRI in the loco-regional assessment and management of rectal cancer is presented. The findings on MRI and their accuracy are reviewed based on the most up-to-date evidence. Optimisation of MRI acquisition and relevant regional anatomy are also presented, based on published literature and our own experience.

Prospective assessment of imaging after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to assess the accuracy of imaging techniques in predicting pathologic tumor (ypT), node (ypN) stages and the circumferential resection margin (ypCRM) status of rectal cancers after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

METHODS

Using pelvic computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and endorectal ultrasound (ERUS), 90 consecutive patients with locally advanced mid-to-low rectal cancer were prospectively assessed. Postirradiation T and N stages and infiltration of the CRM, as assessed by CT, MRI and ERUS, were compared with histopathologic findings.

RESULTS

The accuracy of ypT staging was low, whatever the imaging technique used (37% by CT, 34% by MRI, and 27% by ERUS), the most frequent inaccuracy being overstaging. Imaging showed a good specificity and good negative predictive values (NPV) when mural staging was grouped into ypT ≤ 3 and ypT4 categories; in particular, ERUS achieved a 92% specificity and 95% NPV. CRM involvement was correctly predicted in 71% of patients by CT (74% specificity; 93% NPV) and in 85% by MRI (88% specificity; 95% NPV). The accuracy for nodal staging was 62%, 68%, and 65% by CT, MRI and ERUS, respectively; the corresponding NPV were 88%, 78%, and 76%.

CONCLUSION

Current imaging techniques are inaccurate in restaging rectal cancer after CRT but are useful in predicting T ≤ 3 tumors, cases with negative nodes and tumor-free CRM. These findings may be of clinical relevance for planning less invasive surgery.

Regional lymph node metastasis and locoregional recurrence of rectal carcinoma in the era of TME [corrected] surgery. Implications for treatment decisions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

For rectal carcinoma treated according to the concept of total mesorectal excision (TME surgery), the independent influence of regional lymph node metastasis on the locoregional recurrence risk is still in discussion. A reliable assessment of this risk is important for an individualised selective indication for neoadjuvant radio-/radiochemotherapy.

METHODS

Analysis of literature, especially of the last 20 years, and consideration of pathological and oncological basic research. Multivariate analysis of data of the Erlangen Registry of Colorectal Carcinoma.

RESULTS

The clinical assessment of the pretherapeutic regional lymph node status by the present available imaging methods is still unreliable. The analysis of the association between pretherapeutic regional lymph node status and locoregional recurrence risk has to be based on follow-up data of patients treated by primary surgery and has to be distinguished between patients treated by conventional and optimised quality-assured TME surgery, respectively. Data from Erlangen show an increase of the local recurrence risk for patients with at least four involved regional lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with at least four involved regional lymph nodes, a neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy may be indicated. However, today, the pretherapeutic diagnosis is uncertain and results in overtherapy in 40%. Thus, in case of positive lymph node findings by imaging methods, the benefits and risk of neoadjuvant therapy in such situations should always be discussed with the patient in the sense of informed consent and shared decision.

Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Management: 2nd European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

During the first decade of the 21st century a number of important European randomized studies were published. In order to help shape clinical practice based on best scientific evidence from the literature, the International Conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) was organized in Italy under the endorsement of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), and European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO).

METHODS

Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. The document was available to all Committee members as a web-based document customized for the consensus process. Eight chapters were identified: epidemiology, diagnostics, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment toxicity and quality of life, follow-up, and research questions. Each chapter was subdivided by a topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each member commented and voted, sentence by sentence thrice. Sentences upon which an agreement was not reached after voting round # 2 were openly debated during a Consensus Conference in Perugia (Italy) from 11 December to 13 December 2008. A hand-held televoting system collected the opinions of both the Committee members and the audience after each debate. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: "large consensus", "moderate consensus", and "minimum consensus".

RESULTS

The total number of the voted sentences was 207. Of the 207, 86% achieved large consensus, 13% achieved moderate consensus, and only 3 (1%) resulted in minimum consensus. No statement was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the members, and the majority was voted on by >85%.

CONCLUSIONS

This Consensus Conference represents an expertise opinion process that may help shape future programs, investigational protocols, and guidelines for staging and treatment of rectal cancer throughout Europe.

Preoperative staging of rectal cancer

Preoperative staging is now an essential factor in the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer because tumor stage is the strongest predictive factor for recurrence. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer can be divided into either local or distant staging. Local staging incorporates the assessment of mural wall invasion, circumferential resection margin involvement, as well as the nodal status for metastasis. Distant staging assesses for evidence of metastatic disease. The aim of this review is to consider the indications and limitations of the current preoperative imaging modalities for rectal cancer staging including clinical examination, endorectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and positron emission tomography–computed tomography, with respect to local and distant disease.

Accuracy of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

To achieve better prognosis and quality of life for patients with rectal cancer, extent of surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy should accurately reflect disease extent. The aim of this study was to evaluate accuracy of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (HRMRI) for preoperative staging of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2003, 104 patients with primary rectal cancer were examined with HRMRI and underwent radical surgery. Transmural invasion depth and lymph node metastasis were assessed prospectively and classified according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) system by both HRMRI and histopathology, and results were compared. Criteria for mesorectal and lateral pelvic lymph node involvement were short-axis diameters of > or =5 mm and > or =4 mm, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 15 pT1, 25 pT2, 50 pT3, and 14 pT4 tumors. Overall accuracy rate for transmural invasion depth was 84%. The mesorectal fascia could be visualized in 98% of patients. Twenty-three patients had mesorectal fascia involvement and the overall accuracy rate was 96% (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 96%). Fifty-three patients had mesorectal lymph node metastasis and the overall accuracy rate was 74% (sensitivity, 83%; specificity, 64%). Lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis was observed in 15 patients and the overall accuracy rate was 87% (sensitivity, 87%; specificity, 87%).

CONCLUSIONS

HRMRI was moderately accurate for prediction of mesorectal lymph node metastasis and highly accurate regarding transmural invasion depth, and mesorectal fascia and lateral pelvic node involvement. Therefore, HRMRI appears useful for preoperative decision-making in rectal cancer treatment.

[Pelvic MRI at 3.0 Tesla]

High resolution MR imaging is ideal for pelvic imaging. To achieve good image quality at 3.0 Tesla MR, one may not simply import protocols used at 1.5 Tesla MR. Issues specific to 3.0 Tesla MR imaging must be considered including chemical shift, magnetic susceptibility, dielectric effect, specific absorption rates (SAR), motion artifacts and optimal echo time (TE) and repetition tome (TR) to achieve the desired tissue contrast. High quality pelvic MRI (prostate, rectum, and female pelvis) at 3.0 Tesla is possible. In addition, it offers potential advantages due to its ability to provide excellent vascular imaging and advances with functional imaging (diffusion, spectroscopy). This article discusses the parameters required to achieve quality pelvic imaging at 3.0 Tesla, the specifics of high-field MR imaging, and illustrates achievable clinical results.

[Current imaging for rectal cancer]

Rectal cancer is one of the most common causes of death from cancer. Accurate staging is necessary for optimal treatment. The tumor node metastasis (TNM) system is used to describe numerically the anatomical extent of cancer. Various diagnostic methods provide accurate staging. Endorectal ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance tomography (MR) are most adequate for determining tumor stage. Moreover, MR is highly accurate in predicting the circumferential resection margin. Accurate node staging remains however difficult with both EUS and MR. Modern multidetector row CT is predestined for detecting distant metastases as it is a widespread, fast, and reproducible method.