1
|
Piqeur F, Creemers DMJ, Banken E, Coolen L, Tanis PJ, Maas M, Roef M, Marijnen CAM, van Hellemond IEG, Nederend J, Rutten HJT, Peulen HMU, Burger JWA. Dutch national guidelines for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2024; 127:102736. [PMID: 38696903 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2023] [Revised: 04/15/2024] [Accepted: 04/18/2024] [Indexed: 05/04/2024]
Abstract
Due to improvements in treatment for primary rectal cancer, the incidence of LRRC has decreased. However, 6-12% of patients will still develop a local recurrence. Treatment of patients with LRRC can be challenging, because of complex and heterogeneous disease presentation and scarce - often low-grade - data steering clinical decisions. Previous consensus guidelines have provided some direction regarding diagnosis and treatment, but no comprehensive guidelines encompassing all aspects of the clinical management of patients with LRRC are available to date. The treatment of LRRC requires a multidisciplinary approach and overarching expertise in all domains. This broad expertise is often limited to specific expert centres, with dedicated multidisciplinary teams treating LRRC. A comprehensive, narrative literature review was performed and used to develop the Dutch National Guideline for management of LRRC, in an attempt to guide decision making for clinicians, regarding the complete clinical pathway from diagnosis to surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Floor Piqeur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2 2333ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Davy M J Creemers
- GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Universiteitssingel 40 6229ER, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Evi Banken
- GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Universiteitssingel 40 6229ER, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Liën Coolen
- Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Pieter J Tanis
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Dr. Molewaterplein 40 3015 GD, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Universiteitssingel 40 6229ER, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark Roef
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Corrie A M Marijnen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2 2333ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Irene E G van Hellemond
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Joost Nederend
- Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623 EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Harm J T Rutten
- GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Universiteitssingel 40 6229ER, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Heike M U Peulen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Jacobus W A Burger
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2 5623EJ, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Radiomic Features from Post-Operative 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT Imaging Associated with Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Preliminary Findings. J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12052058. [PMID: 36902845 PMCID: PMC10004457 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12052058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2023] [Revised: 03/03/2023] [Accepted: 03/03/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer (LRRC) remains a major clinical concern; it rapidly invades pelvic organs and nerve roots, causing severe symptoms. Curative-intent salvage therapy offers the only potential for cure but it has a higher chance of success when LRRC is diagnosed at an early stage. Imaging diagnosis of LRRC is very challenging due to fibrosis and inflammatory pelvic tissue, which can mislead even the most expert reader. This study exploited a radiomic analysis to enrich, through quantitative features, the characterization of tissue properties, thus favoring an accurate detection of LRRC by Computed Tomography (CT) and 18F-FDG-Positron Emission Tomography/CT (PET/CT). Of 563 eligible patients undergoing radical resection (R0) of primary RC, 57 patients with suspected LRRC were included, 33 of which were histologically confirmed. After manually segmenting suspected LRRC in CT and PET/CT, 144 Radiomic Features (RFs) were generated, and RFs were investigated for univariate significant discriminations (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p < 0.050) of LRRC from NO LRRC. Five RFs in PET/CT (p < 0.017) and two in CT (p < 0.022) enabled, individually, a clear distinction of the groups, and one RF was shared by PET/CT and CT. As well as confirming the potential role of radiomics to advance LRRC diagnosis, the aforementioned shared RF describes LRRC as tissues having high local inhomogeneity due to the evolving tissue's properties.
Collapse
|
3
|
Imaging Diagnosis of Primary Liver Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Dilated Weighted Imaging and the Treatment Effect of Sorafenib. COMPUTATIONAL AND MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN MEDICINE 2022; 2022:8586943. [PMID: 35799672 PMCID: PMC9256338 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8586943] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2022] [Revised: 05/25/2022] [Accepted: 05/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Objective This work explores the application value of dilated weighted imaging (DWI) in the diagnosis of primary liver cancer (PLC) and the effect of sorafenib in the treatment of PLC. Methods 88 patients with PLC who were treated in The First Affiliated Hospital of Northwest University from March 2019 to March 2021 were selected and randomly rolled into an experimental group and a control group, with 44 cases in each group. Patients in both groups were treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and the patients in the experimental group were treated with oral sorafenib on the basis of TACE. The indicators of complications, short-term efficacy (STE), and long-term efficacy (LTE) of the two groups were observed. All patients received DWI and magnetic resonance (MR) plain scan. The diagnostic accuracy and misdiagnosis rate of the two methods in diagnosing the PLC were compared. Results The accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of MR plain scan were 68%, 88%, and 89%, respectively, while those of DWI were 96%, 95%, and 94.2%, respectively. It indicated that the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of DWI in diagnosing lesions were better than those of MR plain scan, especially the diagnostic accuracy (P < 0.05). The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) of the STE in the experimental group were 30% and 97%, respectively, and those in the control group were 6% and 54.5%, respectively. The experimental group's mean progression-free survival (mPFS) and mean overall survival (mOS) were 12 and 25 months, respectively, while the control group's were 8 and 19 months, respectively. It was concluded that the mPFS and mOS of patients receiving TACE combined with oral sorafenib were much higher than those receiving TACE only (P < 0.05). Conclusion DWI and TACE combined with sorafenib had high application value in the diagnosis and treatment of PLC.
Collapse
|
4
|
Diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/MRI versus MRI alone in the diagnosis of pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46:5086-5094. [PMID: 34402948 PMCID: PMC8502129 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-03224-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Revised: 07/16/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/MRI and MRI in the diagnosis of pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. Methods All PET/MRIs of patients in the follow-up of rectal cancer performed between 2011 and 2018 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Recurrence was confirmed/excluded either by histopathology or imaging follow-up (> 4 months). Four groups of readers (groups 1/2: one radiologist each, groups 3/4: one radiologist/one nuclear medicine physician) independently interpreted MRI and PET/MRI. The likelihood of recurrence was scored on a 5-point-scale. Inter-reader agreement, sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV and accuracy were assessed. ROC curve analyses were performed. Results Fourty-one PET/MRIs of 40 patients (mean 61 years ± 10.9; 11 women, 29 men) were included. Sensitivity of PET/MRI in detecting recurrence was 94%, specificity 88%, PPV/NPV 97% and 78%, accuracy 93%. Sensitivity of MRI was 88%, specificity 75%, PPV/NPV 94% and 60%, accuracy 85%. ROC curve analyses showed an AUC of 0.97 for PET/MRI and 0.92 for MRI, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.116). On MRI more cases were scored as equivocal (12% versus 5%). Inter-reader agreement was substantial for PET/MRI and MRI (0.723 and 0.656, respectively). Conclusion 18F-FDG-PET/MRI and MRI are accurate in the diagnosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy are comparable for both modalities, but PET/MRI increases readers’ confidence levels and reduces the number of equivocal cases. Graphic abstract ![]()
Collapse
|
5
|
Lambregts DMJ, Min LA, Schurink N, Beets-Tan RGH. Multiparametric Imaging for the Locoregional Follow-up of Rectal Cancer. CURRENT COLORECTAL CANCER REPORTS 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s11888-020-00450-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
6
|
The added value of pelvic surveillance by MRI during postoperative follow-up of rectal cancer, with a focus on abbreviated MRI. Eur Radiol 2020; 30:3113-3124. [PMID: 32072254 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06711-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2019] [Revised: 01/17/2020] [Accepted: 02/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the added value of MRI over CT for the detection of pelvic recurrence during postoperative surveillance after rectal cancer surgery and to compare the diagnostic accuracy for pelvic recurrence achieved with abbreviated MRI (aMRI) with that of conventional enhanced MRI (cMRI). METHODS Patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery followed by MRI in addition to the standard CT follow-up protocol were evaluated retrospectively. Two readers independently scored images from CT, cMRI, and aMRI, which consisted of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, to rate the likelihood of recurrence. Diagnostic accuracy and ROC curves were calculated. The patients were divided into two groups for risk-adapted surveillance according to risk of recurrence: high-risk (n = 157) and low-risk (n = 169) groups. RESULTS In total, 579 MRIs from 326 patients were assessed. A total of 48 pelvic recurrences occurred in 33 patients. The AUC in cMRI, aMRI, and CT were 0.98, 0.99, and 0.84, respectively. The difference in performance between CT and cMRI or aMRI for identifying recurrence was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Both cMRI and aMRI showed superior performance compared with CT in the high-risk group (p < 0.001), but this was not the case in the low-risk group (p = 0.13). Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of aMRI was similar to that of cMRI. CONCLUSIONS The addition of MRI to the postoperative surveillance protocol may result in an improvement in the detection of pelvic recurrence after rectal cancer surgery. For patients at high risk of recurrence, an aMRI surveillance may be justified to improve the diagnostic yield. KEY POINTS • The addition of MRI to the postoperative surveillance protocol improved the diagnostic yield in patients at a high risk of recurrence. • Abbreviated non-enhanced MRI with DWI allows detection of pelvic recurrence with a diagnostic accuracy that is similar to that of contrast-enhanced MRI (AUC, 0.99 and 0.98, respectively; p = 0.12). • Abbreviated MRI that is restricted to high spatial resolution structural imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging takes less time and can be carried out without the need for injection of a contrast agent.
Collapse
|