Jong Keon Jang1, Sang Hyun Choi2, Seong Ho Park1, Kyung Won Kim1, Hyun Jin Kim1, Jong Seok Lee1, Ah Young Kim1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. edwardchoi83@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG) for pathological complete response (pCR) and its correlation with pathological findings. METHODS: Original studies that investigated the correlation of mrTRG with pathological tumor regression grade and pathological T stage were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up until August 31, 2018, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search terms included colorectal cancer, chemoradiation therapy, magnetic resonance imaging, and response or regression. Meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity for pathologic complete response (pCR) and pathologic T1 or lower than T1 stage (≤ypT1) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated in both mrTRG 1 and mrTRG 1 or 2, respectively. RESULTS: Six studies with 916 patients were included. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity of mrTRG 1 for pCR were 32.3% (95% CI, 18.2-50.6%) and 93.5% (95% CI, 91.5-95.1%), while for ≤ypT1 they were 31.8% (95% CI, 16.2-53.0%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 91.9-96.5%). On the contrary, sensitivity and specificity of mrTRG 1 or 2 for pCR were 69.9% (95% CI, 60.2-78.1%) and 62.2% (95% CI, 56.2-67.8%), while those for ≤ypT1 were 71.4% (95% CI, 61.6-79.6%) and 67.7% (95% CI, 59.8-74.7%). CONCLUSIONS: mrTRG 1 showed high specificity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but suboptimal sensitivity. mrTRG 1 or 2 showed higher sensitivity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but lower specificity. Because of the suboptimal sensitivity of mrTRG 1, it might be limited as a criterion for less aggressive treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 shows high specificity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but suboptimal sensitivity. • Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 or 2 shows higher sensitivity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but lower specificity than magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 alone.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG) for pathological complete response (pCR) and its correlation with pathological findings. METHODS: Original studies that investigated the correlation of mrTRG with pathological tumor regression grade and pathological T stage were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up until August 31, 2018, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search terms included colorectal cancer, chemoradiation therapy, magnetic resonance imaging, and response or regression. Meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity for pathologic complete response (pCR) and pathologic T1 or lower than T1 stage (≤ypT1) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated in both mrTRG 1 and mrTRG 1 or 2, respectively. RESULTS: Six studies with 916 patients were included. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity of mrTRG 1 for pCR were 32.3% (95% CI, 18.2-50.6%) and 93.5% (95% CI, 91.5-95.1%), while for ≤ypT1 they were 31.8% (95% CI, 16.2-53.0%) and 94.7% (95% CI, 91.9-96.5%). On the contrary, sensitivity and specificity of mrTRG 1 or 2 for pCR were 69.9% (95% CI, 60.2-78.1%) and 62.2% (95% CI, 56.2-67.8%), while those for ≤ypT1 were 71.4% (95% CI, 61.6-79.6%) and 67.7% (95% CI, 59.8-74.7%). CONCLUSIONS: mrTRG 1 showed high specificity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but suboptimal sensitivity. mrTRG 1 or 2 showed higher sensitivity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but lower specificity. Because of the suboptimal sensitivity of mrTRG 1, it might be limited as a criterion for less aggressive treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 shows high specificity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but suboptimal sensitivity. • Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 or 2 shows higher sensitivity for pCR and ≤ypT1, but lower specificity than magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemoradiotherapy; Diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Rectal neoplasms
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
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Marie E Weswood; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick N M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-03-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Walter L Devillé; Frank Buntinx; Lex M Bouter; Victor M Montori; Henrica C W de Vet; Danielle A W M van der Windt; P Dick Bezemer Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2002-07-03 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Seong Ho Park; Seung Hyun Cho; Sang Hyun Choi; Jong Keon Jang; Min Ju Kim; Seung Ho Kim; Joon Seok Lim; Sung Kyoung Moon; Ji Hoon Park; Nieun Seo Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Barbara D Wichtmann; Steffen Albert; Wenzhao Zhao; Angelika Maurer; Claus Rödel; Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz; Jürgen Hesser; Frank G Zöllner; Ulrike I Attenberger Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Nir Horesh; Michael R Freund; Zoe Garoufalia; Rachel Gefen; Arun Nagarajan; Eva Suarez; Sameh Hany Emile; Steven D Wexner Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 3.267