Onofrio A Catalano1,2,3, Susanna I Lee4, Chiara Parente5, Christy Cauley6, Felipe S Furtado4,7, Robin Striar4,7, Andrea Soricelli8,5, Marco Salvatore5,9, Yan Li10, Lale Umutlu10, Lina Garcia Cañamaque11, David Groshar12,13, Umar Mahmood4,7, Lawrence S Blaszkowsky14,15, David P Ryan14, Jeffrey W Clark14,16, Jennifer Wo17, Theodore S Hong17, Hiroko Kunitake6, Liliana Bordeianou6, David Berger6, Rocco Ricciardi6, Bruce Rosen4,7. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, White Building Rm 250, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. ocatalano@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. ocatalano@mgh.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Naples "Parthenope", Naples, Italy. ocatalano@mgh.harvard.edu. 4. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, White Building Rm 250, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 5. SDN IRCCS, Naples, Italy. 6. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 7. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, University of Naples "Parthenope", Naples, Italy. 9. University of Naples Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, NA, Italy. 10. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 11. Hospital Universitario Madrid Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Assuta Medical Centers, Tel Aviv, Israel. 13. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 14. Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 15. Vernon Cancer Center, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington Street, Newton, MA, 02462, USA. 16. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 17. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) in evaluating the local extent of rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the possible role of PET/MR versus magnetic resonance (MR) in clinically staging rectal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective two-center cohort study of 62 patients with untreated rectal cancer investigated the possible role of baseline staging PET/MR versus stand-alone MR in determination of clinical stage. Two readers reviewed T and N stage, mesorectal fascia involvement, tumor length, distance from the anal verge, sphincter involvement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI). Sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal examination, and follow-up imaging, along with surgery when available, served as the reference standard. RESULTS: PET/MR outperformed MR in evaluating tumor size (42.5 ± 21.03 mm per the reference standard, 54 ± 20.45 mm by stand-alone MR, and 44 ± 20 mm by PET/MR, P = 0.004), and in identifying N status (correct by MR in 36/62 patients [58%] and by PET/MR in 49/62 cases [79%]; P = 0.02) and external sphincter infiltration (correct by MR in 6/10 and by PET/MR in 9/10; P = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to any other features. CONCLUSION: PET/MR provides a more precise assessment of the local extent of rectal cancers in evaluating cancer length, N status, and external sphincter involvement. PET/MR offers the opportunity to improve clinical decision-making, especially when evaluating low rectal tumors with possible external sphincter involvement.
PURPOSE: The role of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) in evaluating the local extent of rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the possible role of PET/MR versus magnetic resonance (MR) in clinically staging rectal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective two-center cohort study of 62 patients with untreated rectal cancer investigated the possible role of baseline staging PET/MR versus stand-alone MR in determination of clinical stage. Two readers reviewed T and N stage, mesorectal fascia involvement, tumor length, distance from the anal verge, sphincter involvement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI). Sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal examination, and follow-up imaging, along with surgery when available, served as the reference standard. RESULTS: PET/MR outperformed MR in evaluating tumor size (42.5 ± 21.03 mm per the reference standard, 54 ± 20.45 mm by stand-alone MR, and 44 ± 20 mm by PET/MR, P = 0.004), and in identifying N status (correct by MR in 36/62 patients [58%] and by PET/MR in 49/62 cases [79%]; P = 0.02) and external sphincter infiltration (correct by MR in 6/10 and by PET/MR in 9/10; P = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to any other features. CONCLUSION: PET/MR provides a more precise assessment of the local extent of rectal cancers in evaluating cancer length, N status, and external sphincter involvement. PET/MR offers the opportunity to improve clinical decision-making, especially when evaluating low rectal tumors with possible external sphincter involvement.
Authors: Marcelo A Queiroz; Cinthia D Ortega; Felipe R Ferreira; Fernanda C Capareli; Sergio C Nahas; Giovanni G Cerri; Carlos A Buchpiguel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Alexander Herold; Christian Wassipaul; Michael Weber; Florian Lindenlaub; Sazan Rasul; Anton Stift; Judith Stift; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Marcus Hacker; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Alexander R Haug; Dietmar Tamandl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Francesco Crafa; Serafino Vanella; Onofrio A Catalano; Kelsey L Pomykala; Mario Baiamonte Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-08-14 Impact factor: 5.374
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Felipe S Furtado; Krista E Suarez-Weiss; Mark Vangel; Jeffrey W Clark; James C Cusack; Theodore Hong; Lawrence Blaszkowsky; Jennifer Wo; Robin Striar; Lale Umutlu; Heike E Daldrup-Link; David Groshar; Ricciardi Rocco; Liliana Bordeianou; Mark A Anderson; Amirkasra Mojtahed; Motaz Qadan; Cristina Ferrone; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Felix G Gassert; Johannes Rübenthaler; Clemens C Cyran; Johann S Rink; Vincent Schwarze; Johanna Luitjens; Florian T Gassert; Marcus R Makowski; Stefan O Schoenberg; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Dietmar Tamandl; Matthias F Froelich Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 9.236