OBJECTIVES: To outline the current role and future potential of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of oesophageal cancer regarding T-staging, N-staging, tumour delineation for radiotherapy (RT) and treatment response assessment. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched identifying all articles related to the use of MRI in oesophageal cancer. Data regarding the value of MRI in the areas of interest were extracted in order to calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy for group-related outcome measures. RESULTS: Although historically poor, recent improvements in MRI protocols and techniques have resulted in better imaging quality and the valuable addition of functional information. In recent studies, similar or even better results have been achieved using optimised MRI compared with other imaging strategies for T- and N-staging. No studies clearly report on the role of MRI in oesophageal tumour delineation and real-time guidance for RT so far. Recent pilot studies showed that functional MRI might be capable of predicting pathological response to treatment and patient prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the near future MRI has the potential to bring improvement in staging, tumour delineation and real-time guidance for RT and assessment of treatment response, thereby complementing the limitations of currently used imaging strategies. KEY POINTS: • MRI's role in oesophageal cancer has been somewhat limited to date. • However MRI's ability to depict oesophageal cancer is continuously improving. • Optimising TN-staging, radiotherapy planning and response assessment ultimately improves individualised cancer care. • MRI potentially complements the limitations of other imaging strategies regarding these points.
OBJECTIVES: To outline the current role and future potential of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of oesophageal cancer regarding T-staging, N-staging, tumour delineation for radiotherapy (RT) and treatment response assessment. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched identifying all articles related to the use of MRI in oesophageal cancer. Data regarding the value of MRI in the areas of interest were extracted in order to calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy for group-related outcome measures. RESULTS: Although historically poor, recent improvements in MRI protocols and techniques have resulted in better imaging quality and the valuable addition of functional information. In recent studies, similar or even better results have been achieved using optimised MRI compared with other imaging strategies for T- and N-staging. No studies clearly report on the role of MRI in oesophageal tumour delineation and real-time guidance for RT so far. Recent pilot studies showed that functional MRI might be capable of predicting pathological response to treatment and patient prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the near future MRI has the potential to bring improvement in staging, tumour delineation and real-time guidance for RT and assessment of treatment response, thereby complementing the limitations of currently used imaging strategies. KEY POINTS: • MRI's role in oesophageal cancer has been somewhat limited to date. • However MRI's ability to depict oesophageal cancer is continuously improving. • Optimising TN-staging, radiotherapy planning and response assessment ultimately improves individualised cancer care. • MRI potentially complements the limitations of other imaging strategies regarding these points.
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Johannes B Reitsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Pieter L Jager; Berthe L F Van Eck-Smit; John T M Plukker; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark van Heijl; Jikke M Omloo; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; Patrick M Bossuyt; Olivier R Busch; Hugo W Tilanus; Maarten C Hulshof; Ate van der Gaast; Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen; Han J Bonenkamp; John Th Plukker; Miguel A Cuesta; Fiebo J Ten Kate; Jan Pruim; Herman van Dekken; Jacques J Bergman; Gerrit W Sloof; J Jan van Lanschot Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Takashima; N Takeuchi; H Shiozaki; K Kobayashi; S Morimoto; J Ikezoe; N Tomiyama; K Harada; K Shogen; T Kozuka Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mariaelena Occhipinti; Benedikt H Heidinger; Elisa Franquet; Ronald L Eisenberg; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Frank J Wessels; Marcel Verheij; Edwin P M Jansen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alessandro Ambrosi; Antonio Esposito; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Alessandro Ambrosi; Maria C Petrone; Carla Canevari; Damiano Chiari; Annalaura Salerno; Paolo G Arcidiacono; Roberto Nicoletti; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Francesca Gallivanone; Luigi Gianolli; Elena Orsenigo; Antonio Esposito; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Francesco Giganti; Annalaura Salerno; Alessandro Ambrosi; Damiano Chiari; Elena Orsenigo; Antonio Esposito; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Peter S N van Rossum; Nadia Haj Mohammad; Frank P Vleggaar; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: T J Weijs; L Goense; P S N van Rossum; G J Meijer; A L H M W van Lier; F J Wessels; M N G Braat; I M Lips; J P Ruurda; M A Cuesta; R van Hillegersberg; R L A W Bleys Journal: J Anat Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 2.610
Authors: John M Findlay; Richard S Gillies; James M Franklin; Eugene J Teoh; Greg E Jones; Sara di Carlo; Fergus V Gleeson; Nicholas D Maynard; Kevin M Bradley; Mark R Middleton Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 5.315