Alejandro Recio-Boiles1, Hytham Hammad2, Krisha Howell3, Bobby T Kalb4, Valentine N Nfonsam5, Aaron J Scott6, Hani M Babiker6, Emad Elquza6. 1. Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA. areciomd@email.arizona.edu. 2. Clinical Research, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 3. Radiation Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Medical Imaging, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. Surgical Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 6. Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: An accurate clinical and radiological staging is the pyramid of treatment decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Guidelines recommended neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by surgical resection for fit patients with LARC. Determining the aggressiveness of intervention while avoiding needless morbidity according to patient risk remains an unmet pre-operative decision-making need. With newer magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques and image acquisition available at our Cancer Center, we seek to retrospectively review the correlation between pre- and post-CRT MRI response to the surgical pathological stage in order to aide multidisciplinary team decision making. METHODS: Our Cancer Center Rectal Cancer Registry between 2011 and 2015 included 57 patients with LARC, 20 completed standard CRT with surgery, and of those 10 had repeated MRI after CRT. RESULTS: Our retrospective case series revealed that 90% of the patients had a downstage tumor response on surgical specimen compared to radiological evaluation after CRT, and furthermore, all patients who were re-staged with MRI prior to surgery correlated with the gold standard pathological stage (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Post-CRT MRI could potentially aide decision making to further avoid 20% of patients with a complete pathological response from a morbid surgery, whereas 10% of patients with an upstaged disease state may require a more aggressive neoadjuvant or planned surgical intervention. We concluded that future multidisciplinary oncology care treatment decision making would benefit from a repeat MRI after neoadjuvant CRT of LARC.
PURPOSE: An accurate clinical and radiological staging is the pyramid of treatment decisions in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Guidelines recommended neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by surgical resection for fit patients with LARC. Determining the aggressiveness of intervention while avoiding needless morbidity according to patient risk remains an unmet pre-operative decision-making need. With newer magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques and image acquisition available at our Cancer Center, we seek to retrospectively review the correlation between pre- and post-CRT MRI response to the surgical pathological stage in order to aide multidisciplinary team decision making. METHODS: Our Cancer Center Rectal Cancer Registry between 2011 and 2015 included 57 patients with LARC, 20 completed standard CRT with surgery, and of those 10 had repeated MRI after CRT. RESULTS: Our retrospective case series revealed that 90% of the patients had a downstage tumor response on surgical specimen compared to radiological evaluation after CRT, and furthermore, all patients who were re-staged with MRI prior to surgery correlated with the gold standard pathological stage (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Post-CRT MRI could potentially aide decision making to further avoid 20% of patients with a complete pathological response from a morbid surgery, whereas 10% of patients with an upstaged disease state may require a more aggressive neoadjuvant or planned surgical intervention. We concluded that future multidisciplinary oncology care treatment decision making would benefit from a repeat MRI after neoadjuvant CRT of LARC.
Authors: M J Lahaye; S M E Engelen; P J Nelemans; G L Beets; C J H van de Velde; J M A van Engelshoven; R G H Beets-Tan Journal: Semin Ultrasound CT MR Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: F De Felice; A L Magnante; D Musio; M Ciolina; C N De Cecco; M Rengo; A Laghi; V Tombolini Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Lynette Cederquist; Yi-Jen Chen; Kristen K Ciombor; Stacey Cohen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Paul F Engstrom; Jean L Grem; Axel Grothey; Howard S Hochster; Sarah Hoffe; Steven Hunt; Ahmed Kamel; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Mary F Mulcahy; James D Murphy; Steven Nurkin; Leonard Saltz; Sunil Sharma; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Evan Wuthrick; Kristina M Gregory; Lisa Gurski; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Sam Hee Kim; Ki Beom Bae; Jung Min Kim; Jae Ho Shin; Min Sung An; Tae Geun Ha; Sung Mok Ryu; Kwang Hee Kim; Tae Hyeon Kim; Chang Soo Choi; Jin Yong Shin; Minkyung Oh; Seung Hun Baek; Kwan Hee Hong Journal: J Korean Soc Coloproctol Date: 2012-04-30
Authors: Monique Maas; Doenja M J Lambregts; Patty J Nelemans; Luc A Heijnen; Milou H Martens; Jeroen W A Leijtens; Meindert Sosef; Karel W E Hulsewé; Christiaan Hoff; Stephanie O Breukink; Laurents Stassen; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Geerard L Beets Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Pietro Valerio Foti; Giuseppe Privitera; Sebastiano Piana; Stefano Palmucci; Corrado Spatola; Roberta Bevilacqua; Luigi Raffaele; Vincenzo Salamone; Rosario Caltabiano; Gaetano Magro; Giovanni Li Destri; Pietro Milone; Giovanni Carlo Ettorre Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2016-07-18