1
|
de Wijkerslooth EM, Boerma EJG, van Rossem CC, Koopmanschap MA, Baeten CI, Beverdam FH, Bosmans JW, Consten EC, Dekker JWT, Emous M, van Geloven AA, Gijsen AF, Heijnen LA, Jairam AP, van der Ploeg AP, Steenvoorde P, Toorenvliet BR, Vermaas M, Wiering B, Wijnhoven BP, van den Boom AL. Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis: Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial. Ann Surg 2024; 279:885-890. [PMID: 37698025 PMCID: PMC10997181 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000006089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial.Background:Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. METHODS This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. RESULTS In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. CONCLUSIONS Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Evert-Jan G. Boerma
- Departments of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen/Sittard, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marc A. Koopmanschap
- Departments of Surgery, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Coen I.M. Baeten
- Departments of Surgery, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Esther C.J. Consten
- Departments of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
- Departments of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marloes Emous
- Departments of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Anton F. Gijsen
- Departments of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Luc A. Heijnen
- Departments of Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar/Den Helder, The Netherlands
| | - An P. Jairam
- Departments of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Pascal Steenvoorde
- Departments of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | | | - Maarten Vermaas
- Departments of Surgery, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle a/d Ijssel, The Netherlands
| | - Bas Wiering
- Departments of Surgery, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem, The Netherlands
| | - Bas P.L. Wijnhoven
- Departments of Surgery, Erasmus MC—University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anne Loes van den Boom
- Departments of Surgery, Erasmus MC—University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
de Wijkerslooth EML, Boerma EJG, van Rossem CC, van Rosmalen J, Baeten CIM, Beverdam FH, Bosmans JWAM, Consten ECJ, Dekker JWT, Emous M, van Geloven AAW, Gijsen AF, Heijnen LA, Jairam AP, Melles DC, van der Ploeg APT, Steenvoorde P, Toorenvliet BR, Vermaas M, Wiering B, Wijnhoven BPL, van den Boom AL. 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis: a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial. Lancet 2023; 401:366-376. [PMID: 36669519 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02588-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2022] [Revised: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 11/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis is unclear. The increasing global threat of antimicrobial resistance warrants restrictive antibiotic use, which could also reduce side-effects, length of hospital stay, and costs. METHODS In this pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, patients with complex appendicitis (aged ≥8 years) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendicectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre, and treating physicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. The main outcome was the absolute risk difference (95% CI) in the primary endpoint, adjusted for age and severity of appendicitis, with a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. Outcome assessment was based on electronic patient records and a telephone consultation 90 days after appendicectomy. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NL5946. FINDINGS Between April 12, 2017, and June 3, 2021, 13 267 patients were screened and 1066 were randomly assigned, 533 to each group. 31 were excluded from intention-to-treat analysis of the 2-day group and 30 from the 5-day group owing to errors in recruitment or consent. Appendicectomy was done laparoscopically in 955 (95%) of 1005 patients. The telephone follow-up was completed in 664 (66%) of 1005 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 (10%) of 502 patients analysed in the 2-day group and 41 (8%) of 503 patients analysed in the 5-day group (adjusted absolute risk difference 2·0%, 95% CI -1·6 to 5·6). Rates of complications and re-interventions were similar between trial groups. Fewer patients had adverse effects of antibiotics in the 2-day group (45 [9%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (112 [22%] of 503 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·344, 95% CI 0·237 to 0·498). Re-admission to hospital was more frequent in the 2-day group (58 [12%] of 502 patients) than in the 5-day group (29 [6%] of 503 patients; OR 2·135, 1·342 to 3·396). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION 2 days of postoperative intravenous antibiotics for complex appendicitis is non-inferior to 5 days in terms of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days, based on a non-inferiority margin of 7·5%. These findings apply to laparoscopic appendicectomy conducted in a well resourced health-care setting. Adopting this strategy will reduce adverse effects of antibiotics and length of hospital stay. FUNDING The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Joost van Rosmalen
- Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Coen I M Baeten
- Department of Surgery, Groene Hart Hospital, Gouda, Netherlands
| | | | | | - Esther C J Consten
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, Netherlands; Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, Netherlands
| | | | - Marloes Emous
- Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands
| | | | - Anton F Gijsen
- Department of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| | - Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Surgery, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, Netherlands
| | - An P Jairam
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands
| | - Damian C Melles
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Medical Immunology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Maarten Vermaas
- Department of Surgery, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den Ijssel, Netherlands
| | - Bas Wiering
- Department of Surgery, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem, Netherlands
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
van den Broek JJ, van der Wolf FSW, Heijnen LA, Schreurs WH. The prognostic importance of MRI detected extramural vascular invasion (mrEMVI) in locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35:1849-1854. [PMID: 32488420 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03632-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND MRI detected extramural vascular invasion (mrEMVI) is a poor prognostic factor in rectal cancer patients. The objectives of this study were to assess survival outcomes in patients with and without mrEMVI and to compare the prognostic value of mrEMVI with other rectal cancer features. METHODS In a Dutch high volume rectal cancer center cohort of sixty-seven locally advanced rectal cancer patients, an independent radiologist reviewed all primary staging MRI scans. The presence of mrEMVI was correlated to tumor specific and survival outcomes. RESULTS 20/67 patients had mrEMVI positive rectal cancer. 55% (11/20) developed metachronous metastases, compared with 23% (11/47) in the mrEMVI negative group (OR 4.0, p = 0.01). Overall survival was also decreased with a Hazard ratio of 3.3 (p = 0.01). A multivariable logistic regression with a backward selection procedure was conducted including cT-stage, c-N-stage, extramural tumor invasion depth, mesorectal fascia involvement, distance to anorectal junction, tumor length, mrEMVI, CEA level, and synchronous metastases. After stepwise removal based on p value, only positive mrEMVI remained as a single significant predictor for metachronous metastases (OR: 4.16 , p < 0.05). CONCLUSION Positive mrEMVI is a poor prognostic factor in locally advanced rectal cancer with a 4-fold increased risk of developing metachronous metastases after surgery and a worsened overall survival. mrEMVI also appeared an independent risk factor, with a stronger prediction for metachronous metastases than other MRI-detectable tumor characteristics. mrEMVI should be incorporated in all risk stratification guidelines for rectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J J van den Broek
- Department of Surgery, Northwest clinics, PO box 501, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
| | - F S W van der Wolf
- Department of Radiology, Antonius Hospital Sneek, Sneek, The Netherlands
| | - L A Heijnen
- Department of Surgery, Northwest clinics, PO box 501, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - W H Schreurs
- Department of Surgery, Northwest clinics, PO box 501, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van den Boom AL, de Wijkerslooth EML, van Rosmalen J, Beverdam FH, Boerma EJG, Boermeester MA, Bosmans JWAM, Burghgraef TA, Consten ECJ, Dawson I, Dekker JWT, Emous M, van Geloven AAW, Go PMNYH, Heijnen LA, Huisman SA, Jean Pierre D, de Jonge J, Kloeze JH, Koopmanschap MA, Langeveld HR, Luyer MDP, Melles DC, Mouton JW, van der Ploeg APT, Poelmann FB, Ponten JEH, van Rossem CC, Schreurs WH, Shapiro J, Steenvoorde P, Toorenvliet BR, Verhelst J, Versteegh HP, Wijnen RMH, Wijnhoven BPL. Two versus five days of antibiotics after appendectomy for complex acute appendicitis (APPIC): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2018; 19:263. [PMID: 29720238 PMCID: PMC5932884 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2629-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2018] [Accepted: 04/04/2018] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Acute appendicitis is one of the most common indications for emergency surgery. In patients with a complex appendicitis, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended after appendectomy. There is no consensus regarding the optimum duration of antibiotics. Guidelines propose 3 to 7 days of treatment, but shorter courses may be as effective in the prevention of infectious complications. At the same time, the global issue of increasing antimicrobial resistance urges for optimization of antibiotic strategies. The aim of this study is to determine whether a short course (48 h) of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to current standard practice of 5 days. Methods Patients of 8 years and older undergoing appendectomy for acute complex appendicitis – defined as a gangrenous and/or perforated appendicitis or appendicitis in presence of an abscess – are eligible for inclusion. Immunocompromised or pregnant patients are excluded, as well as patients with a contraindication to the study antibiotics. In total, 1066 patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental treatment arm (48 h of postoperative intravenously administered (IV) antibiotics) or the control arm (5 days of postoperative IV antibiotics). After discharge from the hospital, patients participate in a productivity-cost-questionnaire at 4 weeks and a standardized telephone follow-up at 90 days after appendectomy. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of infectious complications, including intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and surgical site infection (SSI), and mortality within 90 days after appendectomy. Secondary outcomes include IAA, SSI, restart of antibiotics, length of hospital stay (LOS), reoperation, percutaneous drainage, readmission rate, and cost-effectiveness. The non-inferiority margin for the difference in the primary endpoint rate is set at 7.5% (one-sided test at ɑ 0.025). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be performed. Discussion This trial will provide evidence on whether 48 h of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to a standard course of 5 days of antibiotics. If non-inferiority is established, longer intravenous administration following appendectomy for complex appendicitis can be abandoned, and guidelines need to be adjusted accordingly. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register, NTR6128. Registered on 20 December 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2629-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Loes van den Boom
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elisabeth M L de Wijkerslooth
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Joost van Rosmalen
- Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Marja A Boermeester
- Department of Surgery, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Imro Dawson
- Department of Surgery, IJsselland Ziekenhuis, Capelle a/d IJssel, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marloes Emous
- Department of Surgery, MC Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Peter M N Y H Go
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Surgery, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Sander A Huisman
- Department of Surgery, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Joske de Jonge
- Department of Surgery, Tergooi, Hilversum/Blaricum, The Netherlands
| | - Jurian H Kloeze
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Marc A Koopmanschap
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hester R Langeveld
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Misha D P Luyer
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Damian C Melles
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Johan W Mouton
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Jeroen E H Ponten
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Joël Shapiro
- Department of Surgery, IJsselland Ziekenhuis, Capelle a/d IJssel, The Netherlands
| | - Pascal Steenvoorde
- Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | | | - Joost Verhelst
- Department of Surgery, Ikazia Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hendt P Versteegh
- Department of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Rene M H Wijnen
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas P L Wijnhoven
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Martens MH, Maas M, Heijnen LA, Lambregts DMJ, Leijtens JWA, Stassen LPS, Breukink SO, Hoff C, Belgers EJ, Melenhorst J, Jansen R, Buijsen J, Hoofwijk TGM, Beets-Tan RGH, Beets GL. Long-term Outcome of an Organ Preservation Program After Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 108:djw171. [PMID: 27509881 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djw171] [Citation(s) in RCA: 237] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2016] [Accepted: 06/10/2016] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to establish the oncological and functional results of organ preservation with a watch-and-wait approach (W&W) and selective transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in patients with a clinical complete or near-complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer. METHODS Between 2004 and 2014, organ preservation was offered if response assessment with digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI showed (near) cCR. Watch-and-wait was offered for cCR, and two options were offered for near cCR: TEM or reassessment after three months. Follow-up included endoscopy and MRIs every three months during the first year, and every six months thereafter. Long-term outcome was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Functional outcome was assessed with colostomy-free survival and Vaizey incontinence score (0 = perfect continence, 24 = totally incontinent). RESULTS One hundred patients were included, with median follow-up of 41.1 months. Sixty-one had cCR at initial response assessment. Thirty-nine had near cCR, of whom 24 developed cCR at the second assessment and 15 patients underwent TEM (9 ypT0, 1 ypT1, 5 ypT2). Fifteen patients developed a local regrowth (12 luminal, 3 nodal), all salvageable and within 25 months. Five patients developed metastases, and five patients died. Three-year overall survival was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 89.9% to 98.9%), distant metastasis-free survival was 96.8% (95% CI = 90.4% to 99.0%), local regrowth-free survival was 84.6% (95% CI = 75.8% to 90.5%), and disease-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI = 70.9% to 87.4%). Colostomy-free survival was 94.8% (95% CI = 88.0% to 97.8%), with a good continence after watch-and-wait (Vaizey = 3.4, SD = 3.9) and moderate after TEM (Vaizey = 9.7, SD = 5.1). CONCLUSIONS Organ preservation appears oncologically safe for selected rectal cancer patients with a cCR or near cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation when applying strict selection criteria and frequent follow-up, including endoscopy and MRI. The low colostomy rate and the good long-term functional outcome warrant discussing this option with the patient as an alternative to major surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Milou H Martens
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Doenja M J Lambregts
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Jeroen W A Leijtens
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Laurents P S Stassen
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Stephanie O Breukink
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Christiaan Hoff
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Eric J Belgers
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Jarno Melenhorst
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Rob Jansen
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Jeroen Buijsen
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Ton G M Hoofwijk
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Regina G H Beets-Tan
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Heijnen LA, Lambregts DMJ, Lahaye MJ, Martens MH, van Nijnatten TJA, Rao SX, Riedl RG, Buijsen J, Maas M, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RGH. Good and complete responding locally advanced rectal tumors after chemoradiotherapy: where are the residual positive nodes located on restaging MRI? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41:1245-52. [PMID: 26814499 PMCID: PMC4912594 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0640-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of persistent mesorectal lymph node metastases on restaging MRI in patients with a good or complete response of their primary tumor (ypT0-2) after CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS Two hundred and twenty eight locally advanced rectal cancer patients underwent CRT, which resulted in a good response (downstaging to yT0-2) in 144 patients. Forty-nine patients were excluded (no surgery/insufficient follow-up or lacking lesion-by-lesion histology results). This resulted in a final study group of 95 yT0-2 patients. For the patients with a yN(+)-status, a detailed lesion-by-lesion comparison between restaging MRI and histology was performed to evaluate the characteristics and distribution of the individual N(+)-nodes. RESULTS 7/95 patients (7%) had a yT0-2N(+) status (11/880 (1%) N(+) nodes): no N(+) were found below the tumor level, 55% of the N(+) nodes were located at the level of the tumor, and 45% proximal to the tumor (at a median distance of 1.4 cm above the tumor level). In axial plane, 82% of the nodes were located at the ipsilateral circumference of the tumor, at a median distance of 0.9 cm from the tumor/rectal wall. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of persistent metastatic mesorectal nodes after CRT in patients with a good tumor response after CRT is very low. No N(+) nodes are found below the tumor level. All N(+) nodes are located at the level of or proximal to the primary tumor, of which the majority very close to the tumor/lumen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Doenja M J Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Max J Lahaye
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Milou H Martens
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Sheng-Xiang Rao
- Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Robert G Riedl
- Department of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Buijsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maastro Clinic, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Regina G H Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Rao SX, Lambregts DM, Schnerr RS, Beckers RC, Maas M, Albarello F, Riedl RG, Dejong CH, Martens MH, Heijnen LA, Backes WH, Beets GL, Zeng MS, Beets-Tan RG. CT texture analysis in colorectal liver metastases: A better way than size and volume measurements to assess response to chemotherapy? United European Gastroenterol J 2015; 4:257-63. [PMID: 27087955 DOI: 10.1177/2050640615601603] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2015] [Accepted: 07/27/2015] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) are known to have limitations in assessing the response of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) to chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE The objective of this article is to compare CT texture analysis to RECIST-based size measurements and tumor volumetry for response assessment of CRLMs to chemotherapy. METHODS Twenty-one patients with CRLMs underwent CT pre- and post-chemotherapy. Texture parameters mean intensity (M), entropy (E) and uniformity (U) were assessed for the largest metastatic lesion using different filter values (0.0 = no/0.5 = fine/1.5 = medium/2.5 = coarse filtration). Total volume (cm(3)) of all metastatic lesions and the largest size of one to two lesions (according to RECIST 1.1) were determined. Potential predictive parameters to differentiate good responders (n = 9; histological TRG 1-2) from poor responders (n = 12; TRG 3-5) were identified by univariable logistic regression analysis and subsequently tested in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Diagnostic odds ratios were recorded. RESULTS The best predictive texture parameters were Δuniformity and Δentropy (without filtration). Odds ratios for Δuniformity and Δentropy in the multivariable analyses were 0.95 and 1.34, respectively. Pre- and post-treatment texture parameters, as well as the various size and volume measures, were not significant predictors. Odds ratios for Δsize and Δvolume in the univariable logistic regression were 1.08 and 1.05, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Relative differences in CT texture occurring after treatment hold promise to assess the pathologic response to chemotherapy in patients with CRLMs and may be better predictors of response than changes in lesion size or volume.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheng-Xiang Rao
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Doenja Mj Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Roald S Schnerr
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Rianne Cj Beckers
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Fabrizio Albarello
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, S. Anna Hospital, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Robert G Riedl
- Department of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Cornelis Hc Dejong
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Milou H Martens
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Walter H Backes
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Meng-Su Zeng
- Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Regina Gh Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Maas M, Lambregts DMJ, Nelemans PJ, Heijnen LA, Martens MH, Leijtens JWA, Sosef M, Hulsewé KWE, Hoff C, Breukink SO, Stassen L, Beets-Tan RGH, Beets GL. Assessment of Clinical Complete Response After Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer with Digital Rectal Examination, Endoscopy, and MRI: Selection for Organ-Saving Treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 2015. [PMID: 26198074 PMCID: PMC4595525 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 225] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Background The response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer can be assessed by clinical examination, consisting of digital rectal examination (DRE) and endoscopy, and by MRI. A high accuracy is required to select complete response (CR) for organ-preserving treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of clinical examination (endoscopy with or without biopsy and DRE), T2W-MRI, and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) for the detection of CR after CRT. Methods This prospective cohort study in a university hospital recruited 50 patients who underwent clinical assessment (DRE, endoscopy with or without biopsy), T2W-MRI, and DWI at 6–8 weeks after CRT. Confidence levels were used to score the likelihood of CR. The reference standard was histopathology or recurrence-free interval of >12 months in cases of wait-and-see approaches. Diagnostic performance was calculated by area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, with corresponding sensitivities and specificities. Strategies were assessed and compared by use of likelihood ratios. Results Seventeen (34 %) of 50 patients had a CR. Areas under the curve were 0.88 (0.78–1.00) for clinical assessment and 0.79 (0.66–0.92) for T2W-MRI and DWI. Combining the modalities led to a posttest probability for predicting a CR of 98 %. Conversely, when all modalities indicated residual tumor, 15 % of patients still experienced CR. Conclusions Clinical assessment after CRT is the single most accurate modality for identification of CR after CRT. Addition of MRI with DWI further improves the diagnostic performance, and the combination can be recommended as the optimal strategy for a safe and accurate selection of CR after CRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Doenja M J Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Patty J Nelemans
- Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Milou H Martens
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jeroen W A Leijtens
- Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital Roermond, Roermond, The Netherlands
| | - Meindert Sosef
- Department of Surgery, Atrium Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands
| | - Karel W E Hulsewé
- Department of Surgery, Orbis Medical Centre, Sittard, The Netherlands
| | - Christiaan Hoff
- Department of Surgery, Leeuwarden Medical Centre, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
| | - Stephanie O Breukink
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Laurents Stassen
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Regina G H Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Martens MH, Subhani S, Heijnen LA, Lambregts DMJ, Buijsen J, Maas M, Riedl RG, Jeukens CRLPN, Beets GL, Kluza E, Beets-Tan RGH. Can perfusion MRI predict response to preoperative treatment in rectal cancer? Radiother Oncol 2014; 114:218-23. [PMID: 25497874 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2014] [Revised: 11/24/2014] [Accepted: 11/24/2014] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) provides information on perfusion and could identify good prognostic tumors. Aim of this study was to evaluate whether DCE-MRI using a novel blood pool contrast-agent can accurately predict the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty patients underwent DCE-MRI before and 7-10weeks after chemoradiotherapy. Regions of interest were drawn on DCE-MRI with T2W-images as reference. DCE-MRI-based kinetic parameters (initial slope, initial peak, late slope, and AUC at 60, 90, and 120s) determined pre- and post-CRT and their Δ were compared between good (TRG1-2) and poor (TRG3-5) responders. Optimal thresholds were determined and sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. RESULTS Pre-therapy, the late slope was able to discriminate between good and poor responders (-0.05×10(-3) vs. 0.62×10(-3), p<0.001) with an AUC of 0.90, sensitivity 92%, specificity 82%, PPV 80%, and NPV 93%. Other pre-CRT parameters showed no significant differences, nor any post-CRT parameters or their Δ. CONCLUSIONS The kinetic parameter 'late slope' derived from DCE-MRI could potentially be helpful to predict before the onset of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy which tumors are likely going to respond. This could allow for personalized treatment-options in rectal cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Milou H Martens
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands.
| | - Samina Subhani
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jeroen Buijsen
- GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Maastro Clinic, The Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Robert G Riedl
- Department of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | | | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Ewelina Kluza
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Regina G H Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Rao SX, Lambregts DM, Schnerr RS, van Ommen W, van Nijnatten TJ, Martens MH, Heijnen LA, Backes WH, Verhoef C, Zeng MS, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RG. Whole-liver CT texture analysis in colorectal cancer: Does the presence of liver metastases affect the texture of the remaining liver? United European Gastroenterol J 2014; 2:530-8. [PMID: 25452849 DOI: 10.1177/2050640614552463] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2014] [Accepted: 08/25/2014] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver metastases limit survival in colorectal cancer. Earlier detection of (occult) metastatic disease may benefit treatment and survival. OBJECTIVE The objective of this article is to evaluate the potential of whole-liver CT texture analysis of apparently disease-free liver parenchyma for discriminating between colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with and without hepatic metastases. METHODS The primary staging CT examinations of 29 CRC patients were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into three groups: patients without liver metastases (n = 15), with synchronous liver metastases (n = 10) and metachronous liver metastases within 18 months following primary staging (n = 4). Whole-liver texture analysis was performed by delineation of the apparently non-diseased liver parenchyma (excluding metastases or other focal liver lesions) on portal phase images. Mean grey-level intensity (M), entropy (E) and uniformity (U) were derived with no filtration and different filter widths (0.5 = fine, 1.5 = medium, 2.5 = coarse). RESULTS Mean E1.5 and E2.5 for the whole liver in patients with synchronous metastases were significantly higher compared with the non-metastatic patients (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01). Mean U1.5 and U2.5 were significantly lower in the synchronous metastases group compared with the non-metastatic group (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02). Texture parameters for the metachronous metastases group were not significantly different from the non-metastatic group or synchronous metastases group (p > 0.05), although - similar to the synchronous metastases group - there was a subtle trend towards increased E1.5, E2.5 and decreased U1.5, U2.5 values. Areas under the ROC curve for the diagnosis of synchronous metastatic disease based on the texture parameters E1.5,2.5 and U1.5,2.5 ranged between 0.73 and 0.78. CONCLUSION Texture analysis of the apparently non-diseased liver holds promise to differentiate between CRC patients with and without metastatic liver disease. Further research is required to determine whether these findings may be used to benefit the prediction of metachronous liver disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheng-Xiang Rao
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands ; Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, China
| | - Doenja Mj Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Roald S Schnerr
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Wenzel van Ommen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands ; Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Milou H Martens
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands ; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands ; Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Walter H Backes
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands
| | - Cornelis Verhoef
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, The Netherlands
| | - Meng-Su Zeng
- Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, China
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands ; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, The Netherlands
| | - Regina Gh Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands ; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Heijnen LA, Maas M, Lahaye MJ, Lalji U, Lambregts DMJ, Martens MH, Riedl RG, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RGH. Value of gadofosveset-enhanced MRI and multiplanar reformatting for selecting good responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:1845-52. [PMID: 24898096 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3231-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2013] [Revised: 04/23/2014] [Accepted: 05/08/2014] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Our primary objective was to evaluate diagnostic performance of gadofosveset T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (T1W MRI) for discriminating between ypT0-2 and ypT3-4 tumours after chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer compared with T2W MRI for a general and expert reader. Second objectives included assessing the value of multiplanar reformatting (MPR) and interobserver agreement. METHODS A general and expert reader evaluated 49 patients for likelihood of ypT0-2 tumour after CRT on T2W, gadofosveset T1W MRI, and gadofosveset T1W MRI + T2W MRI. The general reader scored with and without MPR. Confidence level scores were used to construct receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Area under the curve (AUC) values and diagnostic parameters were calculated and compared. RESULTS Gadofosveset T1W MRI + T2W MRI showed slightly superior sensitivity than T2W MRI for the general but not the expert reader. Specificity was higher for the expert on gadofosveset T1W MRI only compared with T2W MRI only (100% vs. 82%). MPR did not increase diagnostic performance. Interobserver agreement was highest for the combination of gadofosveset-enhanced T1W imaging plus T2W MRI. CONCLUSIONS The sole use or addition of gadofosveset-enhanced T1W MRI to T2W MRI did not increase significantly diagnostic performance for assessing ypT0-2 tumours. Adding gadofosveset-enhanced T1W MRI slightly increased sensitivity for the general reader and specificity for the expert reader, but this increase was not significant for more accurate clinical decision making. MPR did not improve diagnostic performance. KEY POINTS • ycT restaging with MRI in rectal cancer is challenging. • Gadofosveset-enhanced T1W MRI has shown promise for nodal restaging. • Gadofosveset-enhanced T1W MRI did not significantly increase diagnostic performance for assessing ypT0-2-tumours. • Addition of the gadofosveset sequence to T2W MRI slightly increased sensitivity for the general reader. • MPR did not improve diagnostic performance of ycT staging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Martens MH, Lambregts DM, Papanikolaou N, Heijnen LA, Riedl RG, zur Hausen A, Maas M, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RG. Magnetization Transfer Ratio. Invest Radiol 2014; 49:29-34. [DOI: 10.1097/rli.0b013e3182a3459b] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
|
13
|
Lambregts DMJ, Heijnen LA, Maas M, Rutten IJG, Martens MH, Backes WH, Riedl RG, Bakers FCH, Cappendijk VC, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RGH. Gadofosveset-enhanced MRI for the assessment of rectal cancer lymph nodes: predictive criteria. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2013; 38:720-7. [PMID: 22986353 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-012-9957-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To confirm the use of the nodal signal intensity (SI) and the 'chemical shift' artefact as diagnostic criteria for detecting nodal metastases from rectal cancer on gadofosveset contrast-enhanced MRI. METHODS Thirty-three patients underwent a non-enhanced and gadofosveset-enhanced 3D-T1W GRE-MRI at 1.5T. For each lymph node, the SI of the middle part of the node (mSI) and white rim of the chemical shift artefact encircling the node (wSI) were measured on the non-enhanced and gadofosveset-enhanced images. Second, the aspect of the chemical shift artefact encircling the nodes was scored using a 4-point scale. Results were compared with histology on a node-by-node basis. RESULTS 289 nodes (55 N+) were analysed. On gadofosveset-MRI, mSI and wSI were significantly higher for the benign than for the metastatic lymph nodes (p < 0.001). Areas under the ROC curve (AUC) for identification of metastases were 0.74 (mSI) and 0.73 (wSI). The chemical shift criterion rendered an AUC of 0.85. The combination of mSI and the chemical shift criterion resulted in an AUC of 0.88 and the rendered an AUC of 0.86-0.92 when subjectively (visually) assessed by two independent readers. CONCLUSIONS Benign lymph nodes show significant contrast enhancement after gadofosveset injection, while metastatic nodes do not. The uptake of gadofosveset in the nodes also affects the chemical shift artefact encircling the nodes. Combined assessment of these two features on gadofosveset-enhanced MRI provides a high diagnostic performance for diagnosing metastatic lymph nodes in patients with rectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Doenja M J Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Heijnen LA, Lambregts DMJ, Martens MH, Maas M, Bakers FCH, Cappendijk VC, Oliveira P, Lammering G, Riedl RG, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RGH. Performance of gadofosveset-enhanced MRI for staging rectal cancer nodes: can the initial promising results be reproduced? Eur Radiol 2013; 24:371-9. [PMID: 24051676 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-3016-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2013] [Revised: 08/21/2013] [Accepted: 08/24/2013] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A previous study showed promising results for gadofosveset-trisodium as a lymph node magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent in rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to prospectively confirm the diagnostic performance of gadofosveset MRI for nodal (re)staging in rectal cancer in a second patient cohort. METHODS Seventy-one rectal cancer patients were prospectively included, of whom 13 (group I) underwent a primary staging gadofosveset MRI (1.5-T) followed by surgery (± preoperative 5 × 5 Gy) and 58 (group II) underwent both primary staging and restaging gadofosveset MRI after a long course of chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Nodal status was scored as (y)cN0 or (y)cN+ by two independent readers (R1, R2) with different experience levels. Results were correlated with histology on a node-by-node basis. RESULTS Sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were 94%, 79% and 0.89 for the more experienced R1 and 50%, 83% and 0.74 for the non-experienced R2. R2's performance improved considerably after a learning curve, to an AUC of 0.83. Misinterpretations mainly occurred in nodes located in the superior mesorectum, nodes located in between vessels and nodes containing micrometastases. CONCLUSIONS This prospective study confirms the good diagnostic performance of gadofosveset MRI for nodal (re)staging in rectal cancer. KEY POINTS • Gadofosveset-enhanced MRI shows high performance for nodal (re)staging in rectal cancer. • Gadofosveset MRI may facilitate better selection of patients for personalised treatment. • Results can be reproduced by non-expert readers. • Experience of 50-60 cases is required to achieve required expertise level. • Main pitfalls are nodes located between vessels and nodes containing micrometastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luc A Heijnen
- Department of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|