Can rectal MRI and endorectal ultrasound accurately predict the complete response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy for rectal cancer?

Background

Standardized assessments of clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for rectal cancer have been established, but their utility and accuracy remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical diagnostic value of rectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS) for the determination of cCRs after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and to investigate the concordance between cCR and pathological complete response (pCR).

Methods

Ninety-four patients with rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without immunotherapy were included. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each evaluation method were calculated.

Results

Combined MRI and ERUS assessments found cCR in seven of the 94 patients in our cohort. In the non-immunotherapy group, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI for diagnosing cCR were 50.0%, 85.2%, and 77.1%, respectively, whereas those of ERUS were 50.0%, 92.6%, and 82.9%, respectively; those of combined MRI and ERUS were 25.0%, 96.3%, and 87.5%, respectively. In the immunotherapy group, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy with which MRI identified CR were 51.7%, 76.7%, and 64.4%, respectively; those of ERUS were 13.8%, 90.0%, and 52.5%, respectively, and those of combined MRI and ERUS were 10.3%, 96.7%, and 54.2%, respectively. We also found that 32 of 37 patients with pCR did not meet the cCR evaluation criteria. Of these pCR patients, 78.4% (29/37) received immunotherapy. In the entire cohort, there were five pCRs among the seven cCRs. Of the four cCRs that occurred in the immunotherapy group, three were pCRs.

Conclusions

Rectal MRI and/or ERUS did not provide sufficiently accurate assessments of cCR in patients with rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy, especially immunotherapy, and cCR did not predict pCR.

How to Study the Location and Size of Rectal Tumors That Are Candidates for Local Surgery: Rigid Rectoscopy, Magnetic Resonance, Endorectal Ultrasound or Colonoscopy? An Interobservational Study

1.

BACKGROUND

Preoperative staging of rectal lesions for transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) comprises digital rectal examination, intraoperative rigid rectoscopy (IRR), endorectal ultrasound (EUS), colonoscopy and rectal magnetic resonance imaging (rMRI). The gold standard for topographic features is IRR. Are the results of the other tests sufficiently reliable to eliminate the need for IRR? rMRI is a key test in advanced rectal cancer and is not operator-dependent. Description of anatomical landmarks is variable. Can we rely on the information regarding topographic features provided by all radiologists? 2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a concordance interobservational study involving four diagnostic tests of anatomical characteristics of rectal lesions (colonoscopy, EUS, rectal MRI and IRR), performed by four expert radiologists, regarding topographic rectal features with rMRI. 3.

RESULTS

Fifty-five rectal tumors were operated on by using TES. The distance of the tumor from the anal verge, location by quadrants, size by quadrants and size of tumor were assessed (IRR as gold standard). For most of the tumors, the correlation between IRR and colonoscopy or EUS was very good (ICC > 0.75); the correlation between rMRI and IRR in respect of the size by quadrants (ICC = 0.092) and location by quadrants (ICC = 0.292) was weak. Topographic landmarks studied by the expert radiologists had an excellent correlation, except for distance from the peritoneal reflection to the anal verge (ICC = 0.606). 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical description of rectal lesions by IRR, EUS, colonoscopy and rMRI is reliable. Topographic data obtained by EUS and colonoscopy can serve as a reference to avoid IRR. Determination of these topographic data by rMRI is less reliable. As performed by the expert radiologists, the anatomical study by rMRI is accurate and reproducible.