Accuracy of MR Imaging in Preoperative Staging of Rectal Cancer

Year 2016, Volume: 69 Issue: 3, 173 - 179, 31.12.2016

Didem Sönmez , Elif Peker , Saba Kiremitçi Ayşe Erden , Ayhan Kuzu

Abstract

Aim: In this study we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of preoperative rectal cancer staging in our center, using 1.0 Tesla Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with phased-array coils and determine if the results can be improved by adopting thin-section MRI techniques.

Materal and Methods: Eighty-four patients with biopsy proven rectal cancer were prospectively evaluated by MRI using either the standard (8 mm sections in all planes) or the thin-section protocol (additional 5 mm sections in oblique axial plane perpendicular to the long axis of the tumor). Patients undergoing surgery with or without neoadjuvant therapy (standard MRI, n=15 and thin-section MRI, n=22) were included in the analysis. TNM stage, circumferential resection margin (CRM) and adjacent organ involvement were compared with histopathologic findings.

Results: In the thin-section group, estimation of tumor stage was 59% accurate, showing fair agreement with histopathology (κ=0.38, p<0.05); sensitivity and specificity rates were 100% and 59% for T2 and 47% and 100% for T3 stages. In the standard group estimation of T stage was only 40% accurate, showing no
significant agreement with histopathology. The most frequent staging error was under-staging of borderline pT3 tumors in both groups. Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of positive CRM were 67%, 67% and 95% for thin-section group and 50%, 100% and 93% for standard group, respectively; agreement with histopathology
was significant only for the thin-section group (κ=0.61; p<0.05). Accuracy of nodal status was 77% in the thin-section group (κ=0.51; p<0.05) and 87% in the standard group (κ=0.75; p<0.05).

Conclusion: Thin-section MRI techniques can be used to improve tumor staging and positive CRM predictions even with low field magnet systems.

Keywords

Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Rectal Cancer , Tumor Staging

Ethical Statement

-

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

Preoperatif Rektum Kanseri Evrelemesinde MR Görüntülemenin Doğruluğu

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada merkezimizde 1.0 Tesla Magnetik Rezonans (MR) cihazı ile faz dizilimli koil kullanarak preoperatif rektum kanseri evrelemesinin doğruluğunun değerlendirilmesi ve ince kesit MR teknikleri kullanarak sonuçların iyileştirilebilir olup olmadığının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Biyopsi ile rektum kanseri tanısı kanıtlanmış 84 hasta standart (tüm planlarda 8 mm kalınlığında kesitler) ya da ince kesit protokol (ek olarak tümörün uzun aksına dik 5 mm kalınlığında kesitler) kullanılarak Manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG) ile prospektif olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Neoadjuvan tedavi alarak ya da almadan (standart MRG, n=15 ve ince kesit MRG, n=22) opere edilen hastalar analize dahil edilmiştir. TNM evrelemesi, çevresel rezeksiyon sınırı ve komşu organ tutulumu histopatolojik bulgular ile karşılaştırılmıştır.

Bulgular: İnce kesit grubunda, tümör evresi histopatoloji (κ=0.38, p<0.05) ile %59 uyumlu, hassasiyet ve özgüllük ise T2 evresi için %100 ve %59, T3 evresi için %47 ve %100 doğruluktadır. Standart grupta T evresi histopatoloji ile anlamlı bir uyum göstermemekle birlikte yalnızca %40 doğruluktadır. İki grupta en sık evreleme hatası, sınırda pT3 tümörlerin düşük evrelenmesidir. Çevresel rezeksiyon sınırı pozitifliğinin doğruluk, duyarlılık ve özgüllüğü sırasıyla, ince kesit grubu için %67, %67 ve %95; standart grup için %50, %100 ve %93 tür. Bu sonuçlarda histopatoloji (κ=0.61; p<0.05) yalnızca ince kesit grubu için anlamlıdır. Nodal evrelemenin doğruluğu ince kesitli grupta %77 (κ=0.51; p<0.05) ve standart grupta %87 (κ=0.75; p<0.05) dir.

Sonuç: İnce kesitli MRG teknikleri, düşük manyetik alan sistemlerde bile tümör evrelemesinin ve pozitif çevresel rezeksiyon sınırı tahminlerinin geliştirilmesi için kullanılabilir.

Keywords

Manyetik Rezonans Görüntüleme , Rektum Kanseri , Tümör Evreleme

Ethical Statement

-

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

References

• 1 Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1986;1:1479-1482.
• 2 Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1731-1740.
• 3 Sebag-Montefiore D, Stephens RJ, Steele R, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy versusselective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet 2009;373:811-820.
• 4 Zengel B, Uslu A, Adibelli Z, et al. Adjuvant versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in distal rectal cancer: Comparison of two decades in a single center. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 2015;31:218-223.
• 5 Algebally AM, Mohey N, Szmigielski W, et al. The Value of High-Resolution Technique in Patients with Rectal Carcinoma: Pre-Operative Assessment of Mesorectal Fascia Involvement, Circumferential Resection Margin and Local Staging. Pol J Radiol 2015;80:115- 121.
• 6 Balyasnikova S, Brown G. Imaging Advences in Colorectal Cancer. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 2016;12:162-169.
• 7 Gregory dePrisco. MRI Local Staging and Restaging in Rectal Cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2015;28:194-200.
• 8 Brown G, Daniels IR, Richardson C, et al. Techniques and trouble-shooting in high spatial resolution thin slice MRI for rectal cancer. Br J Radiol 2005;78:245-251.
• 9 Smith N, Brown G. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Acta Oncol 2008;47:20-31.
• 10 International Union Against Cancer (IUCC). TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 7th ed. Sobin LHG, Gospodarowicz M.K., Wittekind C, editors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
• 11 Brown G, Richards CJ, Newcombe RG, et al. Rectal carcinoma: thin-section MR imaging for staging in 28 patients. Radiology 1999;211:215-222.
• 12 Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, et al. Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of highspatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology 2003;227:371-377.
• 13 Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet 1986;2:996-999.
• 14 Akasu T, Iinuma G, Fujita T, et al. Thinsection MRI with a phased-array coil for preoperative evaluation of pelvic anatomy and tumor extent in patients with rectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184:531-538.
• 15 Brown G, Radcliffe AG, Newcombe RG, et al. Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in rectal cancer using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Surg 2003;90:355-364.
• 16 Poon FW, McDonald A, Anderson JH, et al. Accuracy of thin section magnetic resonance using phased-array pelvic coil in predicting the T-staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Radiol 2005;53:256-262.
• 17 Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, Vliegen RF, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of tumour-free resection margin in rectal cancer surgery. Lancet 2001;357:497-504.
• 18 Garcia-Aguilar J, Pollack J, Lee SH, et al. Accuracy of endorectal ultrasonography in preoperative staging of rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:10-15.
• 19 Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, et al. Routine use of transrectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma: results of a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2002; 34:385-390.
• 20 Burdan F, Sudol-Szopinska I, Staroslawska E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and endorectal ultrasound for diagnosis of rectal lesions. Eur J Med Res 2015;20:4.
• 21 Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2002;235:449-457.
• 22 Wibe A, Rendedal PR, Svensson E, et al. Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2002;89:327-334.
• 23 Mercury Study Group. "Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study." BMJ 2006;333:779.
• 24 Purkayastha S, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T, et al. Diagnostic precision of magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative prediction of the circumferential margin involvement in patients with rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2007;9:402-411.
• 25 Ucar A, Obuz B, Sokmen S, et al. Efficacy of High Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Preoperative Local Staging of Rectal Cancer. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther 2012;22:42-48.
• 26 Kim JH, Beets GL, Kim MJ, et al. Highresolution MR imaging for nodal staging in rectal cancer: are there any criteria in addition to the size? Eur J Radiol 2004;52:78-83.
• 27 Vliegen RF, Beets GL, von Meyenfeldt MF, et al. Rectal cancer: MR imaging in local staging--is gadolinium-based contrast material helpful? Radiology 2005; 234:179-188.
• 28 Jao SY, Yang BY, Weng HH, et al. Evaluation of gadolinium-enhanced T1- weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of local staging in rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:1139-1148.
• 29 Gollub MJ, Lakhman Y, McGinty K, et al. Does Gadolinium-Based Contrast Material Improve Diagnostic Accuracy of Local Invasion in Rectal Cancer MRI? A Multireader Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:160-167.