OBJECTIVE: To determine if routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves the detection of resectable local recurrences from colorectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical treatment offers the best prospect of survival for patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, most cases are often diagnosed at an unresectable stage when traditional follow-up methods are used. The impact of MRI surveillance on the early diagnosis of local recurrences has yet to be ascertained. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal and left-sided colon tumors were included in a program of pelvic surveillance by routine MRI, in addition to the standard follow-up protocol. Cases were then analyzed for mode of diagnosis, resectability, and overall survival. RESULTS: Pelvic recurrence was found in 30 (13%) of the 226 patients studied. MRI detected 26 of 30 (87%) and missed 4 of 30 (13%) cases with local recurrence. Of the latter, 3 were anastomotic recurrences. In 28 (14%) patients, local recurrence was suspected by an initial MR scan but cleared by subsequent MRI or CT-guided biopsy. Recurrent pelvic cancer was diagnosed by MRI with 87% sensitivity and 86% specificity. In 19 (63%) cases, CEA was abnormally elevated, and 9 patients (30%) were symptomatic. Surgical resection was possible in only 6 patients (20%). There was no difference between MRI and conventional follow-up tests in their ability to detect cases suitable for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic surveillance by MRI is not justified as part of the routine follow-up after a curative resection for colorectal cancer and should be reserved for selectively imaging patients with clinical, colonoscopic, and/or biochemical suspicion of recurrent disease.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves the detection of resectable local recurrences from colorectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical treatment offers the best prospect of survival for patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, most cases are often diagnosed at an unresectable stage when traditional follow-up methods are used. The impact of MRI surveillance on the early diagnosis of local recurrences has yet to be ascertained. METHODS:Patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal and left-sided colon tumors were included in a program of pelvic surveillance by routine MRI, in addition to the standard follow-up protocol. Cases were then analyzed for mode of diagnosis, resectability, and overall survival. RESULTS: Pelvic recurrence was found in 30 (13%) of the 226 patients studied. MRI detected 26 of 30 (87%) and missed 4 of 30 (13%) cases with local recurrence. Of the latter, 3 were anastomotic recurrences. In 28 (14%) patients, local recurrence was suspected by an initial MR scan but cleared by subsequent MRI or CT-guided biopsy. Recurrent pelvic cancer was diagnosed by MRI with 87% sensitivity and 86% specificity. In 19 (63%) cases, CEA was abnormally elevated, and 9 patients (30%) were symptomatic. Surgical resection was possible in only 6 patients (20%). There was no difference between MRI and conventional follow-up tests in their ability to detect cases suitable for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic surveillance by MRI is not justified as part of the routine follow-up after a curative resection for colorectal cancer and should be reserved for selectively imaging patients with clinical, colonoscopic, and/or biochemical suspicion of recurrent disease.
Authors: G B Secco; R Fardelli; S Rovida; D Gianquinto; E Baldi; P Bonfante; L Derchi; R Ferraris Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2000 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: C Rödel; G G Grabenbauer; K E Matzel; C Schick; R Fietkau; T Papadopoulos; P Martus; W Hohenberger; R Sauer Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Verena Plodeck; Nuh N Rahbari; Juergen Weitz; Christoph G Radosa; Michael Laniado; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Klaus Zöphel; Bettina Beuthien-Baumann; Joerg Kotzerke; Joerg van den Hoff; Ivan Platzek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Eric P van der Stok; Manon C W Spaander; Dirk J Grünhagen; Cornelis Verhoef; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: G P Schmidt; A Baur-Melnyk; A Haug; S Utzschneider; C R Becker; R Tiling; M F Reiser; K A Hermann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Monique Maas; Iris J G Rutten; Patty J Nelemans; Doenja M J Lambregts; Vincent C Cappendijk; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Vincent C Cappendijk; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315