Nino Bogveradze1,2,3, Monique Maas1, Najim El Khababi1,2, Niels W Schurink1,2, Max J Lahaye1, Frans Ch Bakers4, Pieter J Tanis5,6, Miranda Kusters7, Geerard L Beets2,8, Regina Gh Beets-Tan1,2,9, Doenja Mj Lambregts1. 1. Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. GROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, 5211University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, American Hospital Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia. 4. Department of Radiology, 199236Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, 6993Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, 1209University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Surgery, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sigmoid take-off (STO) is a recently established landmark to discern rectal from sigmoid cancer on imaging. STO-assessment can be challenging on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to varying axial planes. PURPOSE: To establish the benefit of using computed tomography (CT; with consistent axial planes), in addition to MRI, to anatomically classify rectal versus sigmoid cancer using the STO. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A senior and junior radiologist retrospectively classified 40 patients with rectal/rectosigmoid cancers using the STO, first on MRI-only (sagittal and oblique-axial views) and then using a combination of MRI and axial CT. Tumors were classified as rectal/rectosigmoid/sigmoid (according to published STO definitions) and then dichotomized into rectal versus sigmoid. Diagnostic confidence was documented using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Adding CT resulted in a change in anatomical tumor classification in 4/40 cases (10%) for the junior reader and in 6/40 cases (15%) for the senior reader. Diagnostic confidence increased significantly after adding CT for the junior reader (mean score 3.85 vs. 4.27; P < 0.001); confidence of the senior reader was not affected (4.28 vs. 4.25; P = 0.80). Inter-observer agreement was similarly good for MRI only (κ=0.77) and MRI + CT (κ=0.76). Readers reached consensus on the classification of rectal versus sigmoid cancer in 78%-85% of cases. CONCLUSION: Availability of a consistent axial imaging plane - in the case of this study provided by CT - in addition to a standard MRI protocol with sagittal and oblique-axial imaging views can be helpful to more confidently localize tumors using the STO as a landmark, especially for more junior readers.
BACKGROUND: The sigmoid take-off (STO) is a recently established landmark to discern rectal from sigmoid cancer on imaging. STO-assessment can be challenging on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to varying axial planes. PURPOSE: To establish the benefit of using computed tomography (CT; with consistent axial planes), in addition to MRI, to anatomically classify rectal versus sigmoid cancer using the STO. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A senior and junior radiologist retrospectively classified 40 patients with rectal/rectosigmoid cancers using the STO, first on MRI-only (sagittal and oblique-axial views) and then using a combination of MRI and axial CT. Tumors were classified as rectal/rectosigmoid/sigmoid (according to published STO definitions) and then dichotomized into rectal versus sigmoid. Diagnostic confidence was documented using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Adding CT resulted in a change in anatomical tumor classification in 4/40 cases (10%) for the junior reader and in 6/40 cases (15%) for the senior reader. Diagnostic confidence increased significantly after adding CT for the junior reader (mean score 3.85 vs. 4.27; P < 0.001); confidence of the senior reader was not affected (4.28 vs. 4.25; P = 0.80). Inter-observer agreement was similarly good for MRI only (κ=0.77) and MRI + CT (κ=0.76). Readers reached consensus on the classification of rectal versus sigmoid cancer in 78%-85% of cases. CONCLUSION: Availability of a consistent axial imaging plane - in the case of this study provided by CT - in addition to a standard MRI protocol with sagittal and oblique-axial imaging views can be helpful to more confidently localize tumors using the STO as a landmark, especially for more junior readers.