Zixuan Zhuang1, Xueqin Ma2, Yang Zhang1, Xuyang Yang1, Mingtian Wei1, Xiangbing Deng1, Ziqiang Wang3. 1. Department of General Surgery, Colorectal Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. 3. Department of General Surgery, Colorectal Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. wangziqiang@scu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative determination of lymph node (LN) status is crucial in treatment planning for rectal cancer. This study prospectively evaluated the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) at staging and restaging based on a node-by-node pairing between MRI imaging findings and histopathology and constructed nomograms to evaluate its diagnostic value. METHODS: From July 2021 to July 2022, patients with histopathologically verified rectal cancer who underwent MRI before surgery were prospectively enrolled. Histological examination of each LN status in the surgical specimens and anatomical matching with preoperative imaging. Taking histopathological results as the gold standard, federating clinical features from patients and LN imaging features on MRI-T2WI. Risk factors for LN metastasis were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis and used to create a nomogram. The performance of the nomograms was assessed with calibration plots and bootstrapped-concordance index and validated using validation cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 500 target LNs in 120 patients were successfully matched with node-by-node comparisons. A total of 353 LNs did not receive neoadjuvant therapy and 147 LNs received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT). Characterization of LNs not receiving neoadjuvant therapy and multivariate regression showed that the short diameter, preoperative CEA level, mrT-stage, border contour, and signal intensity were associated with a high risk of LN metastasis (P < 0.05). The nomogram predicted that the area under the curve was 0.855 (95% CI, 0.794-0.916) and 0.854 (95% CI, 0.727-0.980) in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. In the neoadjuvant therapy group, short diameter, ymrT-stage, internal signal, and MRI-EMVI were associated with LN positivity (P < 0.05), and the area under the curves using the nomogram was 0.912 (95% CI, 0.856-0.968) and 0.915 (95% CI, 0.817-1.000) in two cohorts. The calibration curves demonstrate good agreement between the predicted and actual probabilities for both the training and validation cohorts. CONCLUSION: Our nomograms combined with preoperative clinical and imaging biomarkers have the potential to improve the prediction of nodal involvement, which can be used as an essential reference for preoperative N staging and restaging of rectal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative determination of lymph node (LN) status is crucial in treatment planning for rectal cancer. This study prospectively evaluated the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) at staging and restaging based on a node-by-node pairing between MRI imaging findings and histopathology and constructed nomograms to evaluate its diagnostic value. METHODS: From July 2021 to July 2022, patients with histopathologically verified rectal cancer who underwent MRI before surgery were prospectively enrolled. Histological examination of each LN status in the surgical specimens and anatomical matching with preoperative imaging. Taking histopathological results as the gold standard, federating clinical features from patients and LN imaging features on MRI-T2WI. Risk factors for LN metastasis were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis and used to create a nomogram. The performance of the nomograms was assessed with calibration plots and bootstrapped-concordance index and validated using validation cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 500 target LNs in 120 patients were successfully matched with node-by-node comparisons. A total of 353 LNs did not receive neoadjuvant therapy and 147 LNs received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT). Characterization of LNs not receiving neoadjuvant therapy and multivariate regression showed that the short diameter, preoperative CEA level, mrT-stage, border contour, and signal intensity were associated with a high risk of LN metastasis (P < 0.05). The nomogram predicted that the area under the curve was 0.855 (95% CI, 0.794-0.916) and 0.854 (95% CI, 0.727-0.980) in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. In the neoadjuvant therapy group, short diameter, ymrT-stage, internal signal, and MRI-EMVI were associated with LN positivity (P < 0.05), and the area under the curves using the nomogram was 0.912 (95% CI, 0.856-0.968) and 0.915 (95% CI, 0.817-1.000) in two cohorts. The calibration curves demonstrate good agreement between the predicted and actual probabilities for both the training and validation cohorts. CONCLUSION: Our nomograms combined with preoperative clinical and imaging biomarkers have the potential to improve the prediction of nodal involvement, which can be used as an essential reference for preoperative N staging and restaging of rectal cancer.
Authors: Shandra Bipat; Afina S Glas; Frederik J M Slors; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ann Goding Sauer; Stacey A Fedewa; Lynn F Butterly; Joseph C Anderson; Andrea Cercek; Robert A Smith; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: D M Koh; G Brown; L Temple; H Blake; A Raja; P Toomey; N Bett; S Farhat; A R Norman; I Daniels; J E Husband Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Mustafa A Arain; Yi-Jen Chen; Kristen K Ciombor; Stacey Cohen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Ignacio Garrido-Laguna; Jean L Grem; Andrew Gunn; Sarah Hoffe; Joleen Hubbard; Steven Hunt; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Eric D Miller; Mary F Mulcahy; Steven Nurkin; Michael J Overman; Aparna Parikh; Hitendra Patel; Katrina Pedersen; Leonard Saltz; Charles Schneider; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Alyse Johnson-Chilla; Lisa A Gurski Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Gina Brown; Catherine J Richards; Michael W Bourne; Robert G Newcombe; Andrew G Radcliffe; Nicholas S Dallimore; Geraint T Williams Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Joo Hee Kim; Geerard L Beets; Myeong-Jin Kim; Alfons G H Kessels; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Dow-Mu Koh; Gina Brown; Louis Temple; Asraf Raja; Paul Toomey; Nicholas Bett; Andrew R Norman; Janet E Husband Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-02-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Miriam K Rutegård; Malin Båtsman; Lennart Blomqvist; Martin Rutegård; Jan Axelsson; Ingrid Ljuslinder; Jörgen Rutegård; Richard Palmqvist; Fredrik Brännström; Patrik Brynolfsson; Katrine Riklund Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 3.909