A new rectal ultrasonographic method for the staging of rectal cancer

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI and endorectal ultrasound in the restaging and response assessment of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy

AIM

Restaging imaging by MRI or endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is not routinely performed, but the assessment of response is becoming increasingly important to facilitate individualization of management.

METHOD

A search of the MEDLINE and Scopus databases was performed for studies that evaluated the accuracy of restaging of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with MRI or ERUS against the histopathological outcome. A systematic review of selected studies was performed. The methodological quality of studies that qualified for meta-analysis was critically assessed to identify studies suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles were included in the systematic review. Twelve restaging MRI studies and 18 restaging ERUS studies were eligible for meta-analysis of T-stage restaging accuracy. Overall, ERUS T-stage restaging accuracy (mean [95% CI]: 65% [56-72%]) was nonsignificantly higher than MRI T-stage accuracy (52% [44-59%]). Restaging MRI is accurate at excluding circumferential resection margin involvement. Restaging MRI and ERUS were equivalent for prediction of nodal status: the accuracy of both investigations was 72% with over-staging and under-staging occurring in 10-15%.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity amongst restaging studies is high, limiting conclusive findings regarding their accuracies. The accuracy of restaging imaging is different for different pathological T stages and highest for T3 tumours. Morphological assessment of T- or N-stage by MRI or ERUS is currently not accurate or consistent enough for clinical application. Restaging MRI appears to have a role in excluding circumferential resection margin involvement.

Restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging and endoluminal ultrasound after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging and endoluminal ultrasound play an important role in the restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy, yet their diagnostic accuracy is still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the diagnostic performance of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases from 1996 to March 2012 were searched.

STUDY SELECTION AND INTERVENTIONS

Either MRI or endoluminal ultrasound was used to restage rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy or radiation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

T category, lymph node, and circumferential resection involvement were measured.

RESULTS

The sensitivity estimate for rectal cancer diagnosis (T0) by endoluminal ultrasound (37.0%; 95% CI, 24.0%-52.1%) was higher (p = 0.04) than the sensitivity estimate for MRI (15.3%; 95% CI, 6.5%-32.0%). For T3-4 category, sensitivity estimates of MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were comparable, 82.1% and 87.6%, whereas specificity estimates were poor (53.5% and 66.4%). For lymph node involvement, there was no significant difference between the sensitivity estimates for MRI (61.8%) and endoluminal ultrasound (49.8%). Specificity estimates for MRI and endoluminal ultrasound were 72.0% and 78.7%. For circumferential resection margin involvement, MRI sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% and 80.0%.

LIMITATIONS

To identify the heterogeneity, metaregression was performed on covariates. However, few of the covariates were identified to be statistically significant because of the lack of adequate original data.

CONCLUSION

Accurate restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer by MRI and endoluminal ultrasound is still a challenge. Identifying T0 rectal cancer by imaging is not reliable. Before performing surgery, restaging is important, but some of the T0-2 patients are likely overestimated as T3-4. Both modalities for lymph node involvement are not very good. Magnetic resonance imaging may be a good method to reassess circumferential resection margin.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria pretreatment staging of colorectal cancer

Because virtually all patients with colonic cancer will undergo some form of surgical therapy, the role of preoperative imaging is directed at determining the presence or absence of synchronous carcinomas or adenomas and local or distant metastases. In contrast, preoperative staging for rectal carcinoma has significant therapeutic implications and will direct the use of radiation therapy, surgical excision, or chemotherapy. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis is recommended for the initial evaluation for the preoperative assessment of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Although the overall accuracy of CT varies directly with the stage of colorectal carcinoma, CT can accurately assess the presence of metastatic disease. MRI using endorectal coils can accurately assess the depth of bowel wall penetration of rectal carcinomas. Phased-array coils provide additional information about lymph node involvement. Adding diffusion-weighted imaging to conventional MRI yields better diagnostic accuracy than conventional MRI alone. Transrectal ultrasound can distinguish layers within the rectal wall and provides accurate assessment of the depth of tumor penetration and perirectal spread, and PET and PET/CT have been shown to alter therapy in almost one-third of patients with advanced primary rectal cancer. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

[Impact of endoscopy and endosonography on local staging of rectal carcinoma]

For rectal carcinoma the decision between primary resection, neoadjuvant therapy and local excision depends on an accurate local staging. Local staging includes digital examination, rigid rectoscopy and endorectal ultrasound (EUS). The rectal digitation allows clinical staging according to the mobility of the tumor in relation to the rectal mucosa or the rectal wall. The rigid rectoscopy determines the aboral distance of the tumor from the dentate line or the anal verge. The endorectal ultrasound determines the pre-therapeutic UICC stage on the basis of evaluating the pretherapeutic T and N categories. Results of EUS should be discussed on the background of neoadjuvant therapy including response evaluation and in comparison with the results of magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, there is only little information available concerning evaluation of the circumferential resection margin by EUS. Technical improvements, such as the 3D-EUS, might be appropriate in the future to provide enhancement of EUS staging of rectal tumors.

Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging measurement of extramural tumor spread in rectal cancer

AIM: To evaluate the agreement between transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in classification of ≥ T3 rectal tumors.

METHODS: From January 2010 to January 2012, 86 consecutive patients with ≥ T3 tumors were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 66.4 years (range: 26-91 years). The tumors were all ≥ T3 on TRUS. The sub-classification was defined by the penetration of the rectal wall: a: 0 to 1 mm; b: 1-5 mm; c: 6-15; d: > 15 mm. Early tumors as ab (≤ 5 mm) and advanced tumors as cd (> 5 mm). All patients underwent TRUS using a 6.5 MHz transrectal transducer. The MRI was performed with a 1.5 T Philips unit. The TRUS findings were blinded to the radiologist performing the interpretation of the MRI images and measuring the depth of extramural tumor spread.

RESULTS: TRUS found 51 patients to have an early ≥ T3 tumors and 35 to have an advanced tumor, whereas MRI categorized 48 as early ≥ T3 tumors and 38 as advanced tumors. No patients with tumors classified as advanced by TRUS were found to be early on MRI. The kappa value in classifying early versus advanced T3 rectal tumors was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00). We found a kappa value of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.86) for the total sub-classification between the two methods. The mean maximal tumor outgrowth measured by TRUS, 5.5 mm ± 5.63 mm and on MRI, 6.3 mm ± 6.18 mm, P = 0.004. In 19 of the 86 patients the following CT scan or surgery revealed distant metastases; of the 51 patients in the ultrasound ab group three (5.9%) had metastases, whereas 16 (45.7%) of 35 in the cd group harbored distant metastases, P = 0.00002. The odds ratio of having distant metastases in the ultrasound cd group compared to the ab group was 13.5 (95% CI: 3.5-51.6), P = 0.00002. The mean maximal ultrasound measured outgrowth was 4.3 mm (95% CI: 3.2-5.5 mm) in patients without distant metastases, while the mean maximal outgrowth was 9.5 mm (95% CI: 6.2-12.8 mm) in the patients with metastases, P = 0.00004. Using the MRI classification three (6.3%) of 48 in the MRI ab group had distant metastases, while 16 (42.1%) of the 38 in the MRI cd group, P = 0.00004. The MRI odds ratio was 10.9 (95% CI: 2.9-41.4), P = 0.00008. The mean maximal MRI measured outgrowth was 4.9 mm (95% CI: 3.7-6.1 mm) in patients without distant metastases, while the mean maximal outgrowth was 11.5 mm (95% CI: 7.8-15.2 mm) in the patients with metastases, P = 0.000006.

CONCLUSION: There is good agreement between TRUS and MRI in the pretreatment sub-classification of ≥ T3 tumors. Distant metastases are more frequent in the advanced group.

Intratumoral budding as a potential parameter of tumor progression in mismatch repair-proficient and mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer patients

In colorectal cancer, tumor budding at the invasive front (peritumoral budding) is an established prognostic parameter and decreased in mismatch repair-deficient tumors. In contrast, the clinical relevance of tumor budding within the tumor center (intratumoral budding) is not yet known. The aim of the study was to determine the correlation of intratumoral budding with peritumoral budding and mismatch repair status and the prognostic impact of intratumoral budding using 2 independent patient cohorts. Following pancytokeratin staining of whole-tissue sections and multiple-punch tissue microarrays, 2 independent cohorts (group 1: n = 289; group 2: n = 222) with known mismatch repair status were investigated for intratumoral budding and peritumoral budding. In group 1, intratumoral budding was strongly correlated to peritumoral budding (r = 0.64; P < .001) and less frequent in mismatch repair-deficient versus mismatch repair-proficient cases (P = .177). Sensitivity and specificity for lymph node positivity were 72.7% and 72.1%. In mismatch repair-proficient cancers, high-grade intratumoral budding was associated with right-sided location (P = .024), advanced T stage (P = .001) and N stage pN (P < .001), vascular invasion (P = .041), infiltrating tumor margin (P = .003), and shorter survival time (P = .014). In mismatch repair-deficient cancers, high intratumoral budding was linked to higher tumor grade (P = .004), vascular invasion (P = .009), infiltrating tumor margin (P = .005), and more unfavorable survival time (P = .09). These associations were confirmed in group 2. High-grade intratumoral budding was a poor prognostic factor in univariate (P < .001) and multivariable analyses (P = .019) adjusting for T stage, N stage distant metastasis, and adjuvant therapy. These preliminary results on 511 patients show that intratumoral budding is an independent prognostic factor, supporting the future investigation of intratumoral budding in larger series of both preoperative and postoperative rectal and colon cancer specimens.

Role of tumor size in the pre-operative management of rectal cancer patients

Background

Clinical management of rectal cancer patients relies on pre-operative staging. Studies however continue to report moderate degrees of over/understaging as well as inter-observer variability. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of tumor size for predicting T and N stages in pre-operatively untreated rectal cancers.

Methods

We examined a test cohort of 418 well-documented patients with pre-operatively untreated rectal cancer admitted to the University Hospital of Basel between 1987 and 1996. Classification and regression tree (CART) and logistic regression analysis were carried out to determine the ability of tumor size to discriminate between early (pT1-2) and late (pT3-4) T stages and between node-negative (pN0) and node-positive (pN1-2) patients. Results were validated by an external patient cohort (n = 28).

Results

A tumor diameter threshold of 34 mm was identified from the test cohort resulting in a sensitivity and specificity for late T stage of 76.3%, and 67.4%, respectively and an odds ratio (OR) of 6.67 (95%CI:3.4-12.9). At a threshold value of 29 mm, sensitivity and specificity for node-positive disease were 94% and 15.5%, respectively with an OR of 3.02 (95%CI:1.5-6.1). Applying these threshold values to the validation cohort, sensitivity and specificity for T stage were 73.7% and 77.8% and for N stage 50% and 75%, respectively.

Conclusions

Tumor size at a threshold value of 34 mm is a reproducible predictive factor for late T stage in rectal cancers. Tumor size may help to complement clinical staging and further optimize the pre-operative management of patients with rectal cancer.