Selection of Patients for Organ Preservation After Chemoradiotherapy: MRI Identifies Poor Responders Who Can Go Straight to Surgery.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
14
11
2019
pubmed:
17
3
2020
medline:
4
3
2021
entrez:
16
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can accurately identify poor responders after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) who will need to go straight to surgery, and to evaluate whether results are reproducible among radiologists with different levels of expertise. Seven independent readers with different levels of expertise retrospectively evaluated the restaging MRIs (T2-weighted + diffusion-weighted imaging [T2W + DWI]) of 62 patients and categorized them as (1) poor responders - highly suspicious of tumor; (2) intermediate responders - tumor most likely; and (3) good - potential (near) complete responders. The reference standard was histopathology after surgery (or long-term follow-up in the case of a watch-and-wait program). Fourteen patients were complete responders and 48 had residual tumor. The median percentage of patients categorized by the seven readers as 'poor', 'intermediate', and 'good' responders was 21% (range 11-37%), 50% (range 23-58%), and 29% (range 23-42%), respectively. The vast majority of poor responders had histopathologically confirmed residual tumor (73% ypT3-4), with a low rate (0-5%) of 'missed complete responders'. Of the 14 confirmed complete responders, a median percentage of 71% were categorized in the MR-good response group and 29% were categorized in the MR-intermediate response group. Radiologists of varying experience levels should be able to use MRI to identify the ± 20% subgroup of poor responders who will definitely require surgical resection after CRT. This may facilitate more selective use of endoscopy, particularly in general settings or in centers with limited access to endoscopy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32172333
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08334-8
pii: 10.1245/s10434-020-08334-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2732-2739Références
Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Nadalin W, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy: long-term results. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):711–717; discussion 717-718.
pubmed: 15383798
pmcid: 1356472
Appelt AL, Pløen J, Harling H, et al. High-dose chemoradiotherapy and watchful waiting for distal rectal cancer: a prospective observational study. The Lancet Oncology. 2015;16(8):919–927.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00120-5
Renehan AG, Malcomson L, Emsley R, et al. Watch-and-wait approach versus surgical resection after chemoradiotherapy for patients with rectal cancer (the OnCoRe project): a propensity-score matched cohort analysis. The Lancet Oncology. 2016;17(2):174–183.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00467-2
Martens MH, Maas M, Heijnen LA, et al. Long-term Outcome of an Organ Preservation Program After Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(12).
Smith JJ, Strombom P, Chow OS, et al. Assessment of a Watch-and-Wait Strategy for Rectal Cancer in Patients With a Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(4):e185896.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.5896
van der Valk MJM, Hilling DE, Bastiaannet E, et al. Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): an international multicentre registry study. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2537–2545.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31078-X
Dossa F, Chesney TR, Acuna SA, Baxter NN. A watch-and-wait approach for locally advanced rectal cancer after a clinical complete respons following neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Heptol. 2017;2(7):501-513.
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30074-2
Stijns RCH, Tromp MR, Hugen N, de Wilt JHW. Advances in organ preserving strategies in rectal cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(2):209–219.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.11.024
Maas M, Lambregts DM, Nelemans PJ, et al. Assessment of Clinical Complete Response After Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer with Digital Rectal Examination, Endoscopy, and MRI: Selection for Organ-Saving Treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(12):3873–3880.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9
Lambregts DMJ, Van Heeswijk MM, Delli Pizzi A, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: main interpretation pitfalls and their use for teaching. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(10):4445–4454.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4830-z
van Griethuysen JJM, Bus EM, Hauptmann M, et al. Gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on diffusion-weighted MRI of the rectum at 1.5T: effect of applying a micro-enema to improve image quality. Eur J Radiol. 2018;99:131–137.
Lambregts DMJ, Delli Pizzi A, Lahaye MJ, et al. A pattern-based approach combining tumor morphology on mri with distinct signal patterns on diffusion-weighted imaging to assess response of rectal tumors after chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(3):328–337.
pubmed: 29369900
Siddiqui MR, Gormly KL, Bhoday J, et al. Interobserver agreement of radiologists assessing the response of rectal cancers to preoperative chemoradiation using the MRI tumour regression grading (mrTRG). Clin Radiol. 2016;71(9):854–862.
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.05.005
Patel UB, Taylor F, Blomqvist L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-detected tumor response for locally advanced rectal cancer predicts survival outcomes: MERCURY experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(28):3753–3760.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9068
Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Maas M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(4):1465–1475.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2
Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, et al. Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer. 1994;73(11):2680–2686.
doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940601)73:11<2680::AID-CNCR2820731105>3.0.CO;2-C
Santiago I, Barata M, Figueiredo N, et al. The split scar sign as an indicator of sustained complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(1):224–238.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06348-9
van der Sande ME, Beets GL, Hupkens BJ, et al. Response assessment after (chemo)radiotherapy for rectal cancer: why are we missing complete responses with MRI and endoscopy? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(6):1011–1017.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.11.019
Smith FM, Wiland H, Mace A, Pai RK, Kalady MF. Clinical criteria underestimate complete pathological response in rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(3):311–315.
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182a84eba
Smith FM, Chang KH, Sheahan K, Hyland J, O’Connell PR, Winter DC. The surgical significance of residual mucosal abnormalities in rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Br J Surg. 2012;99(7):993-1001.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.8700
Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2004;232(3):773-783.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2323031368
van der Paardt MP, Zagers MB, Beets-Tan RG, Stoker J, Bipat S. Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2013;269(1):101-112.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122833