Literature DB >> 18227541

Mesorectal fascia invasion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: accuracy of MR imaging for prediction.

Roy F A Vliegen1, Geerard L Beets, Guido Lammering, Raphaëla C Dresen, Harm J Rutten, Alfons G Kessels, Toen-Khiam Oei, Adriaan P de Bruïne, Jos M A van Engelshoven, Regina G H Beets-Tan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after chemotherapy and radiation therapy for predicting tumor invasion of the mesorectal fascia (MRF) in locally advanced primary rectal cancer, by using results of histologic examination and surgery as the reference standard, and to determine morphologic MR imaging criteria for MRF invasion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Ethical Committee of University Hospital Maastricht approved this study and waived informed consent. Two observers independently scored postchemoradiation MR images in 64 patients with rectal cancer (38 male [mean age, 60 years] and 26 female [mean age, 64 years] patients) for MRF tumor invasion with a confidence level scoring system defined by subjective criteria. In a subsequent consensus reading session, morphologic MR criteria for invasion were defined by comparing morphologic changes with histologic findings. These criteria were evaluated and compared with the subjective criteria by comparing areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs).
RESULTS: AUCs of postchemoradiation MR imaging for predicting MRF tumor invasion were 0.81 and 0.82 for observers 1 and 2, respectively. The following four types of morphologic tissue patterns at MR imaging were associated with whether or not MRF invasion was present at histologic examination: (a) development of fat pad larger than 2 mm (seen in no quadrants with and in four quadrants without invasion), (b) development or persistence of spiculations (seen in no quadrants with and in 22 quadrants without invasion), (c) development of diffuse hypointense "fibrotic" tissue (seen in 21 quadrants with and in 32 quadrants without invasion), and (d) persistence of diffuse iso- or hyperintense tissue (seen in 19 quadrants with and in two quadrants without invasion). AUC of postchemoradiation MR imaging for predicting MRF invasion on the basis of morphologic criteria was 0.80. There was no significant difference between the performance of subjective and morphologic criteria (P = .73-.76).
CONCLUSION: Postchemoradiation MR imaging findings have moderate accuracy for predicting tumor invasion of the MRF related to the limitation in differentiating between diffuse "fibrotic" tissue with and that without small tumor foci. Specific other types of morphologic patterns at MR imaging can highly predict a tumor-free or invaded MRF. (c) RSNA, 2008.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18227541     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2462070042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  32 in total

Review 1.  [Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer].

Authors:  W Hohenberger; G Lahmer; R Fietkau; R S Croner; S Merkel; J Göhl; R Sauer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Locally advanced rectal cancer: is diffusion weighted MRI helpful for the identification of complete responders (ypT0N0) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy?

Authors:  S Sassen; M de Booij; M Sosef; R Berendsen; G Lammering; R Clarijs; M Bakker; R Beets-Tan; F Warmerdam; R Vliegen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-07-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Multimodal imaging evaluation in staging of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Suk Hee Heo; Jin Woong Kim; Sang Soo Shin; Yong Yeon Jeong; Heoung-Keun Kang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Systemic Chemotherapy as Salvage Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients Who Fail to Respond to Standard Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Francesco Sclafani; Gina Brown; David Cunningham; Sheela Rao; Paris Tekkis; Diana Tait; Federica Morano; Chiara Baratelli; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Shahnawaz Rasheed; David Watkins; Naureen Starling; Andrew Wotherspoon; Ian Chau
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-05-05

5.  Clinical significance of magnetic resonance imaging findings in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Charles F Bellows; Bernard Jaffe; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Salvatore Pucciarelli; Guiseppe Gagliardi
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2011-04-28

6.  Is there a benefit in using magnetic resonance imaging in the prediction of preoperative neoadjuvant therapy response in locally advanced rectal cancer?

Authors:  Lian-Ming Wu; Jiong Zhu; Jiani Hu; Yan Yin; Hai-Yan Gu; Jia Hua; Jie Chen; Jian-Rong Xu
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 7.  Rectal imaging: part 1, High-resolution MRI of carcinoma of the rectum at 3 T.

Authors:  Vivek Gowdra Halappa; Celia Pamela Corona Villalobos; Susanne Bonekamp; Susan L Gearhart; Jonathan Efron; Joseph Herman; Ihab R Kamel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity after MRI assessment and adjuvant treatment in 189 patients undergoing rectal cancer resection.

Authors:  G S Simpson; N Eardley; F McNicol; P Healey; M Hughes; P S Rooney
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-03-22       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 9.  Gastrointestinal imaging-practical magnetic resonance imaging approach.

Authors:  Baodong Liu; Miguel Ramalho; Mamdoh AlObaidy; Kiran K Busireddy; Ersan Altun; Janaka Kalubowila; Richard C Semelka
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-28

Review 10.  Multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer in 2014: where are we going?

Authors:  Andrea Vignali; Paola De Nardi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.