Literature DB >> 25822672

Prospective Validation of a Low Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging Staging System and Development of a Local Recurrence Risk Stratification Model: The MERCURY II Study.

Nicholas J Battersby1, Peter How, Brendan Moran, Sigmar Stelzner, Nicholas P West, Graham Branagan, Joachim Strassburg, Philip Quirke, Paris Tekkis, Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen, Mark Gudgeon, Bill Heald, Gina Brown.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging classification that preoperatively assessed the relationship between tumor and the low rectal cancer surgical resection plane (mrLRP).
BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancer oncological outcomes remain a global challenge, evidenced by high pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) rates and unacceptable variations in permanent colostomies.
METHODS: Between 2008 and 2012, a prospective, observational, multicenter study (MERCURY II) recruited 279 patients with adenocarcinoma 6 cm or less from the anal verge. MRI assessed the following: mrLRP "safe or unsafe," venous invasion (mrEMVI), depth of spread, node status, tumor height, and tumor quadrant. MRI-based treatment recommendations were compared against final management and pCRM outcomes.
RESULTS: Overall pCRM involvement was 9.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.9-12.3], significantly lower than previously reported rates of 30%. Patients with no adverse MRI features and a "safe" mrLRP underwent sphincter-preserving surgery without preoperative radiotherapy, resulting in a 1.6% pCRM rate. The pCRM rate increased 5-fold for an "unsafe" compared with "safe" preoperative mrLRP [odds ratio (OR) = 5.5; 95% CI, 2.3-13.3)]. Posttreatment MRI reassessment indicated a "safe" ymrLRP in 33 of 113 (29.2%), none of whom had ypCRM involvement. In contrast, persistent "unsafe" ymrLRP posttherapy resulted in 17.5% ypCRM involvement. Further independent MRI assessed risk factors were EMVI (OR = 3.8; 95% CI, 1.5-9.6), tumors less than 4.0 cm from the anal verge (OR = 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-8.8), and anterior tumors (OR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-6.8).
CONCLUSIONS: The study validated MRI low rectal plane assessment, reducing pCRM involvement and avoiding overtreatment through selective preoperative therapy and rationalized use of permanent colostomy. It also highlights the importance of posttreatment restaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25822672     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  73 in total

1.  Long-term outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) for low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Sigmar Stelzner; Gunter Hellmich; Anja Sims; Thomas Kittner; Eric Puffer; Joerg Zimmer; Dorothea Bleyl; Helmut Witzigmann
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  The Perfect Total Mesorectal Excision Obviates the Need for Anything Else in the Management of Most Rectal Cancers.

Authors:  Richard John Heald; Ines Santiago; Oriol Pares; Carlos Carvalho; Nuno Figueiredo
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-11-27

Review 3.  How Should Imaging Direct/Orient Management of Rectal Cancer?

Authors:  Jemma Bhoday; Svetlana Balyasnikova; Anita Wale; Gina Brown
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-11-27

Review 4.  Intersphincteric Resection Pushing the Envelope for Sphincter Preservation.

Authors:  Quentin Denost; Eric Rullier
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-11-27

Review 5.  [Evidence-based surgery of rectal cancer].

Authors:  M Grade; H Flebbe; B M Ghadimi
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 0.955

6.  Transanal total mesorectal excision with intersphincteric resection and use of fluorescent angiography and a lighted urethral stent for distal rectal cancer.

Authors:  A Mabardy; L Lee; A P Valpato; S Atallah
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 3.781

7.  Laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for low rectal cancer through marker meeting approach.

Authors:  Xuefei Yang; Guixi Zhang; Li Jiang; Hao Zhang; Zhihai Liu; Jingsi Liu; Yang Deng; Kai Pan; Joe King Man Fan
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-08

Review 8.  Radiotherapy for Colorectal Cancer: Current Standards and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Matthias F Häfner; Jürgen Debus
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2016-06-16

9.  Association of certification, improved quality and better oncological outcomes for rectal cancer in a specialized colorectal unit.

Authors:  Annika Jacob; Wolfgang Albert; Thomas Jackisch; Christiane Jakob; Anja Sims; Helmut Witzigmann; Sören Torge Mees; Sigmar Stelzner
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Surgeon-Level Variation in Utilization of Local Staging and Neoadjuvant Therapy for Stage II-III Rectal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Douglas S Swords; David E Skarda; William T Sause; Ute Gawlick; George M Cannon; Mark A Lewis; Courtney L Scaife; Jesse A Gygi; H Tae Kim
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.