FDG-PET/MRI for Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Pilot Study

A management of patients achieving clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy and perspectives: on locally advanced rectal cancer

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) and selective use of adjuvant chemotherapy is currently considered the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Despite this, the concept of organ preservation is gradually challenging this approach. The management of complete clinical remission (cCR) lacks international consensus, leading scholars to develop their own perspectives based on well-designed studies and long-term data from large multicenter cohorts. To ensure appropriate treatment, this review focuses on the choice of neoadjuvant therapy, criteria for defining cCR, and treatment strategies for patients who achieve cCR after neoadjuvant therapy. By providing guidance on the accurate management of LARC patients after cCR, this review aims to prevent over- or under-treatment.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society on Appropriate Use Criteria for Nonoperative Management of Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines

For patients with rectal cancer, the standard approach of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (trimodality therapy) is associated with significant long-term toxicity and/or colostomy for most patients. Patient options focused on quality of life (QOL) have dramatically improved, but there remains limited guidance regarding comparative effectiveness. This systematic review and associated guidelines evaluate how various treatment strategies compare to each other in terms of oncologic outcomes and QOL. Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology were used to search for prospective and retrospective trials and meta-analyses of adequate quality within the Ovid Medline database between January 1, 2012, and June 15, 2023. These studies informed the expert panel, which rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 6 clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). The search process yielded 197 articles that advised voting. Increasing data have shown that nonoperative management (NOM) and primary surgery result in QOL benefits noted over trimodality therapy without detriment to oncologic outcomes. For patients with rectal cancer for whom total mesorectal excision would result in permanent colostomy or inadequate bowel continence, NOM was strongly recommended as usually appropriate. Restaging with tumor response assessment approximately 8 to 12 weeks after completion of radiation therapy/chemoradiation therapy was deemed a necessary component of NOM. The panel recommended active surveillance in the setting of a near-complete or complete response. In the setting of NOM, 54 to 56 Gy in 27 to 31 fractions concurrent with chemotherapy and followed by consolidation chemotherapy was recommended. The panel strongly recommends primary surgery as usually appropriate for a T3N0 high rectal tumor for which low anterior resection and adequate bowel function is possible, with adjuvant chemotherapy considered if N+. Recent data support NOM and primary surgery as important options that should be offered to eligible patients. Considering the complexity of multidisciplinary management, patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting, and therapy should be tailored to individual patient goals/values.

Nonoperative Management for Rectal Cancer

ABSTRACT

The treatment paradigm for rectal cancer has been shifting toward de-escalated approaches to preserve patient quality of life. Historically, the standard treatment in the United States for locally advanced rectal cancer has standardly comprised preoperative chemoradiotherapy coupled with total mesorectal excision. Recent data challenge this "one-size-fits-all" strategy, supporting the possibility of omitting surgery for certain patients who achieve a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. Consequently, patients and their physicians must navigate diverse neoadjuvant options, often in the context of pursuing organ preservation. Total neoadjuvant therapy, involving the administration of all chemotherapy and radiation before total mesorectal excision, is associated with the highest rates of clinical complete response. However, questions persist regarding the optimal sequencing of radiation and chemotherapy and the choice between short-course and long-course radiation. Additionally, meticulous response assessment and surveillance are critical for selecting patients for nonoperative management without compromising the excellent cure rates associated with trimodality therapy. As nonoperative management becomes increasingly recognized as a standard-of-care treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, ongoing research in patient selection and monitoring as well as patient-reported outcomes is critical to guide personalized rectal cancer management within a patient-centered framework.

Advances in MRI-Based Assessment of Rectal Cancer Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Comprehensive Review

Rectal cancer presents significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, with neoadjuvant therapy playing a pivotal role in improving resectability and patient outcomes. MRI serves as a critical tool in assessing treatment response. However, differentiating viable tumor tissue from therapy-induced changes on MRI remains a complex task. In this comprehensive review, we explore treatment options for rectal cancer based on resectability status, focusing on the role of MRI in guiding therapeutic decisions. We delve into the nuances of MRI-based evaluation of treatment response following neoadjuvant therapy, paying particular attention to emerging techniques like radiomics. Drawing from our insights based on the literature, we provide essential recommendations for post-neoadjuvant therapy management of rectal cancer, all within the context of MRI-based findings.

Total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer: the evidence and expectations

Current management of locally advanced rectal cancer achieves high cure rates, distant metastatic spread being the main cause of patients' death. Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) employs (chemo)radiotherapy and combined chemotherapy prior to surgery to improve the treatment outcomes. TNT has been shown to reduce significantly distant metastases, increase disease-free survival by 5 - 10% in 3 years, and finally also overall survival (≈ 5% in 7 years). It proved to double the rate of pathologic complete responses, making it an attractive strategy for non-operative management to avoid permanent colostomy in patients with distal tumors. In addition, it endorses adherence to the therapy due to better tolerance and, potentially, shortens its overall duration. A number of questions related to TNT remain currently unresolved including the indications, preferred radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimens, their sequence, timing of surgery, and role of adjuvant therapy. A stratified approach may be the optimal way to go.

PET/MRI in colorectal and anal cancers: an update

Positron emission tomography (PET) in the era of personalized medicine has a unique role in the management of oncological patients and offers several advantages over standard anatomical imaging. However, the role of molecular imaging in lower GI malignancies has historically been limited due to suboptimal anatomical evaluation on the accompanying CT, as well as significant physiological 18F-flurodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in the bowel. In the last decade, technological advancements have made whole-body FDG-PET/MRI a feasible alternative to PET/CT and MRI for lower GI malignancies. PET/MRI combines the advantages of molecular imaging with excellent soft tissue contrast resolution. Hence, it constitutes a unique opportunity to improve the imaging of these cancers. FDG-PET/MRI has a potential role in initial diagnosis, assessment of local treatment response, and evaluation for metastatic disease. In this article, we review the recent literature on FDG-PET/MRI for colorectal and anal cancers; provide an example whole-body FDG-PET/MRI protocol; highlight potential interpretive pitfalls; and provide recommendations on particular clinical scenarios in which FDG-PET/MRI is likely to be most beneficial for these cancer types.

New Frontiers in Oncological Imaging

The more that advances in the medical field are capable of targeted treatments, the more imaging should be tailored to patients [...].

Local Recurrences in Rectal Cancer: MRI vs. CT

Rectal cancers are often considered a distinct disease from colon cancers as their survival and management are different. Particularly, the risk for local recurrence (LR) is greater than in colon cancer. There are many factors predisposing to LR such as postoperative histopathological features or the mesorectal plane of surgical resection. In addition, the pattern of LR in rectal cancer has a prognostic significance and an important role in the choice of operative approach and. Therefore, an optimal follow up based on imaging is critical in rectal cancer. The aim of this review is to analyse the risk and the pattern of local recurrences in rectal cancer and to provide an overview of the role of imaging in early detection of LRs. We performed a literature review of studies published on Web of Science and MEDLINE up to January 2023. We also reviewed the current guidelines of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Although the timing and the modality of follow-up is not yet established, the guidelines usually recommend a time frame of 5 years post surgical resection of the rectum. Computed Tomography (CT) scans and/or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) are the main imaging techniques recommended in the follow-up of these patients. PET-CT is not recommended by guidelines during post-operative surveillance and it is generally used for problem solving.

Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations

Different follow-up strategies are available for patients with rectal cancer following curative treatment. A combination of biochemical testing and imaging investigation, associated with physical examination are commonly used. However, there is currently no consensus about the types of tests to perform, the timing of the testing, and even the need for follow-up at all has been questioned. The aim of this study was to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up tests and programs in patients with non-metastatic disease after definitive treatment of the primary. A literature review was performed of studies published on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to November 2022. Current published guidelines from the most authoritative specialty societies were also reviewed. According to the follow-up strategies available, the office visit is not efficient but represents the only way to maintain direct contact with the patient and is recommended by all authoritative specialty societies. In colorectal cancer surveillance, carcinoembryonic antigen represents the only established tumor marker. Abdominal and chest computed tomography scan is recommended considering that the liver and lungs are the most common sites of recurrence. Since local relapse in rectal cancer is higher than in colon cancer, endoscopic surveillance is mandatory. Different follow-up regimens have been published but randomized comparisons and meta-analyses do not allow to determine whether intensive or less intensive follow-up had any significant influence on survival and recurrence detection rate. The available data do not allow the drawing of final conclusions on the ideal surveillance methods and the frequency with which they should be applied. It is very useful and urgent for clinicians to identify a cost-effective strategy that allows early identification of recurrence with a special focus for high-risk patients and patients undergoing a “watch and wait” approach.