The sigmoid take-off as a landmark to distinguish rectal from sigmoid tumours on MRI: Reproducibility, pitfalls and potential impact on treatment stratification

Anatomic Basis of Rectal Cancer Staging: Clarifying Controversies and Misconceptions

Rectal MRI provides a detailed depiction of pelvic anatomy; specifically, the relationship of the tumor to key anatomic structures, including the mesorectal fascia, anterior peritoneal reflection, and sphincter complex. However, anatomic inconsistencies, pitfalls, and confusion exist, which can have a strong impact on interpretation and treatment. These areas of confusion include the definition of the rectum itself, specifically differentiation of the rectum from the anal canal and the sigmoid colon, and delineation of the high versus low rectum. Other areas of confusion include the relative locations of the mesorectal fascia and peritoneum and their significance in staging and treatment, the difference between the mesorectal fascia and circumferential resection margin, involvement of the sphincter complex, and evaluation of lateral pelvic lymph nodes. The impact of these anatomic inconsistencies and sources of confusion is significant, given the importance of MRI in depicting the anatomic relationship of the tumor to critical pelvic structures, to triage surgical resection and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with the goal of minimizing local recurrence. Evolving treatment paradigms also place MRI central in management of rectal cancer. ©RSNA, 2024.

Impact of the new rectal cancer definition on multimodality treatment and interhospital variability: Results from a nationwide cross-sectional study

AIM

This study aimed to determine the consequences of the new definition of rectal cancer for decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT). The new definition of rectal cancer, the lower border of the tumour is located below the sigmoid take-off (STO), was implemented in the Dutch guideline in 2019 after an international Delphi consensus meeting to reduce interhospital variations.

METHOD

All patients with rectal cancer according to the local MDT, who underwent resection in 2016 in the Netherlands were eligible for this nationwide collaborative cross-sectional study. MRI-images were rereviewed, and the tumours were classified as above or on/below the STO.

RESULTS

This study registered 3107 of the eligible 3178 patients (98%), of which 2784 patients had an evaluable MRI. In 314 patients, the tumour was located above the STO (11%), with interhospital variation between 0% and 36%. Based on TN-stage, 175 reclassified patients with colon cancer (6%) would have received different treatment (e.g., omitting neoadjuvant radiotherapy, candidate for adjuvant chemotherapy). Tumour location above the STO was independently associated with lower risk of 4-year locoregional recurrence (HR 0.529; p = 0.030) and higher 4-year overall survival (HR 0.732; p = 0.037) compared to location under the STO.

CONCLUSION

By using the STO, 11% of the prior MDT-based diagnosis of rectal cancer were redefined as sigmoid cancer, with potential implications for multimodality treatment and prognostic value. Given the substantial interhospital variation in proportion of redefined cancers, the use of the STO will contribute to standardisation and comparability of outcomes in both daily practice and trial settings.

An updated evaluation of the implementation of the sigmoid take-off landmark 1 year after the official introduction in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

The definition of rectal cancer based on the sigmoid take-off (STO) was incorporated into the Dutch guideline in 2019, and became mandatory in the national audit from December 2020. This study aimed to evaluate the use of the STO in clinical practice and the added value of online training, stratified for the period before (group A, historical cohort) and after (group B, current cohort) incorporation into the national audit.

METHODS

Participants, including radiologists, surgeons, surgical and radiological residents, interns, PhD students, and physician assistants, were asked to complete an online training program, consisting of questionnaires, 20 MRI cases, and a training document. Outcomes were agreement with the expert reference, inter-rater variability, and accuracy before and after the training.

RESULTS

Group A consisted of 86 participants and group B consisted of 114 participants. Familiarity with the STO was higher in group B (76% vs 88%, p = 0.027). Its use in multidisciplinary meetings was not significantly higher (50% vs 67%, p = 0.237). Agreement with the expert reference was similar for both groups before (79% vs 80%, p = 0.423) and after the training (87% vs 87%, p = 0.848). Training resulted in significant improvement for both groups in classifying tumors located around the STO (group A, 69-79%; group B, 67-79%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that after the inclusion of the STO in the mandatory Dutch national audit, the STO was consequently used in only 67% of the represented hospitals. Online training has the potential to improve implementation and unambiguous assessment.

Low Rectal Cancers at Initial Staging MRI

Low rectal cancers, which are associated with increased risk of local recurrent disease and poorer prognosis, have unique anatomic considerations and issues for staging and treatment that do not apply to mid and high rectal cancers. Although tumor histology help drive the staging and treatment of all rectal cancers, it is of particular importance in low rectal cancers, which may involve the anal canal, to help establish whether a low rectal mass should be staged and treated as a rectal cancer (ie, adenocarcinoma) or an anal cancer (ie, squamous cell carcinoma). Optimal staging and treatment of rectal cancer are contingent on tumor location and local extent, which help guide management decisions including neoadjuvant therapy and curative surgical treatment strategies. Tumor location in the low rectum and local involvement of the anal canal, sphincter, and pelvic floor help determine whether a patient can undergo sphincter-preserving resection such as a low anterior resection versus abdominoperineal resection to achieve negative surgical margins. Issues exist related to the anatomy and patterns of disease spread that are unique to the low rectum and include how to determine and stage anal sphincter involvement, mesorectal fascia status at the pelvic floor, and nodal status of extramesorectal nodes such as the external iliac and inguinal lymph nodes. For these reasons, it is imperative that radiologists who interpret rectal cancer staging MRI examinations feel comfortable with the unique anatomy of the low rectum and anal canal, nuances of low rectal cancer local disease spread, and treatment paradigms for low rectal cancer. ©RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Gollub in this issue.

MRI restaging of rectal cancer: The RAC (Response-Anal canal-CRM) analysis joint consensus guidelines of the GRERCAR and GRECCAR groups

PURPOSE

To develop guidelines by international experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer restaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evidence-based data and experts' opinions were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts provided recommendations for reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analysed and classified as "RECOMMENDED" versus "NOT RECOMMENDED" (if ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (if < 80% consensus among experts).

RESULTS

Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed.

CONCLUSION

These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer restaging with MRI.

Radiomic Features from Post-Operative 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT Imaging Associated with Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Preliminary Findings

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.

International survey among surgeons on the perioperative management of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Several pivotal studies and international guidelines on the perioperative management of rectal cancer have been published. However, little is known about the current state of perioperative management of rectal cancer patients in clinical practice worldwide.

METHODS

An online survey including 13 questions focusing on key topics related to the perioperative management of patients with rectal cancer was conducted among colorectal surgeons registered within the database of the Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD).

RESULTS

A total of 535 respondents from 89 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons worked in the European region (40.9%). Two hundred and fifty-four respondents (47.5%) performed less than 25% of surgical procedures laparoscopically. The most commonly used definition of the upper limit of the rectum was a fixed distance from the anal verge (23.4%). Magnetic resonance imaging was used to define the upper limit of the rectum by 258 respondents (48.2%). During total mesorectal excision (TME), 301 respondents (56.3%) used a high-tie technique. The most commonly constructed anastomosis was an end-to-end anastomosis (68.2%) with the majority of surgeons performing a leak test intraoperatively (88.9%). A total of 355 respondents (66.4%) constructed a diverting ostomy, and the majority of these surgeons constructed an enterostomy (82%). A total of 208 respondents (39.3%) closed a stoma within 8 weeks. Lastly, 135 respondents (25.2%) introduced a solid diet on postoperative day 1.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable heterogeneity in the perioperative management of rectal cancer patients worldwide with several discrepancies between current international practice and recommendations from international guidelines. To achieve worldwide standardization in rectal cancer care, further research is needed to elucidate the cause of this heterogeneity and find ways of improved implementation of best practice recommendations.

Pelvic CT in addition to MRI to differentiate between rectal and sigmoid cancer on imaging using the sigmoid take-off as a landmark

BACKGROUND

The sigmoid take-off (STO) is a recently established landmark to discern rectal from sigmoid cancer on imaging. STO-assessment can be challenging on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to varying axial planes.

PURPOSE

To establish the benefit of using computed tomography (CT; with consistent axial planes), in addition to MRI, to anatomically classify rectal versus sigmoid cancer using the STO.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A senior and junior radiologist retrospectively classified 40 patients with rectal/rectosigmoid cancers using the STO, first on MRI-only (sagittal and oblique-axial views) and then using a combination of MRI and axial CT. Tumors were classified as rectal/rectosigmoid/sigmoid (according to published STO definitions) and then dichotomized into rectal versus sigmoid. Diagnostic confidence was documented using a 5-point scale.

RESULTS

Adding CT resulted in a change in anatomical tumor classification in 4/40 cases (10%) for the junior reader and in 6/40 cases (15%) for the senior reader. Diagnostic confidence increased significantly after adding CT for the junior reader (mean score 3.85 vs. 4.27; P < 0.001); confidence of the senior reader was not affected (4.28 vs. 4.25; P = 0.80). Inter-observer agreement was similarly good for MRI only (κ=0.77) and MRI + CT (κ=0.76). Readers reached consensus on the classification of rectal versus sigmoid cancer in 78%-85% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Availability of a consistent axial imaging plane - in the case of this study provided by CT - in addition to a standard MRI protocol with sagittal and oblique-axial imaging views can be helpful to more confidently localize tumors using the STO as a landmark, especially for more junior readers.

MRI anatomy of the rectum: key concepts important for rectal cancer staging and treatment planning

A good understanding of the MRI anatomy of the rectum and its surroundings is pivotal to ensure high-quality diagnostic evaluation and reporting of rectal cancer. With this pictorial review, we aim to provide an image-based overview of key anatomical concepts essential for treatment planning, response evaluation and post-operative assessment. These concepts include the cross-sectional anatomy of the rectal wall in relation to T-staging; differences in staging and treatment between anal and rectal cancer; landmarks used to define the upper and lower boundaries of the rectum; the anatomy of the pelvic floor and anal canal, the mesorectal fascia, peritoneum and peritoneal reflection; and guides to help discern different pelvic lymph node stations on MRI to properly stage regional and non-regional rectal lymph node metastases. Finally, this review will highlight key aspects of post-treatment anatomy, including the assessment of radiation-induced changes and the evaluation of the post-operative pelvis after different surgical resection and reconstruction techniques.

FECC-Net: A Novel Feature Enhancement and Context Capture Network Based on Brain MRI Images for Lesion Segmentation

In recent years, the increasing incidence of morbidity of brain stroke has made fast and accurate segmentation of lesion areas from brain MRI images important. With the development of deep learning, segmentation methods based on the computer have become a solution to assist clinicians in early diagnosis and treatment planning. Nevertheless, the variety of lesion sizes in brain MRI images and the roughness of the boundary of the lesion pose challenges to the accuracy of the segmentation algorithm. Current mainstream medical segmentation models are not able to solve these challenges due to their insufficient use of image features and context information. This paper proposes a novel feature enhancement and context capture network (FECC-Net), which is mainly composed of an atrous spatial pyramid pooling (ASPP) module and an enhanced encoder. In particular, the ASPP model uses parallel convolution operations with different sampling rates to enrich multi-scale features and fully capture image context information in order to process lesions of different sizes. The enhanced encoder obtains deep semantic features and shallow boundary features in the feature extraction process to achieve image feature enhancement, which is helpful for restoration of the lesion boundaries. We divide the pathological image into three levels according to the number of pixels in the real mask area and evaluate FECC-Net on an open dataset called Anatomical Tracings of Lesions After Stroke (ATLAS). The experimental results show that our FECC-Net outperforms mainstream methods, such as DoubleU-Net and TransUNet. Especially in small target tasks, FECC-Net is 4.09% ahead of DoubleU-Net on the main indicator DSC. Therefore, FECC-Net is encouraging and can be relied upon for brain MRI image applications.

Interobserver Reliability and the Sigmoid Takeoff—An Interobserver Study

Simple Summary

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer. The sigmoid takeoff is the landmark where the colon sigmoid curves toward the sacrum viewed from sagittal magnetic resonance imaging. We assessed the interobserver variability in the assessment of the anal verge and anorectal junction in patients diagnosed with rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Our data indicate that radiologists are excellent at pointing out if a colorectal tumour is above or beneath the takeoff landmark.

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide. The sigmoid takeoff is the landmark where the colon sigmoid curves toward the sacrum viewed from sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of this study was to assess interobserver variability in the assessment of the anal verge and anorectal junction in patients diagnosed with rectal cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: The rectal MRI examinations were performed using a 1.5- or 3.0-tesla unit using an anterior coil and a standard scan protocol. Two senior radiologists assessed MRI scans from patients under investigation for rectal cancer. The two observers assessed the anal verge and takeoff in cm independently. Difference in agreement between the observers were evaluated using intraclass correlation (ICC) and graphically by Bland–Altman plots. Results: The study population (n = 122) included 68 (55.7%) female and 54 (44.3%) male subjects. The overall median age was 69.5 years (range 39–95 years). There was perfect agreement between the two observers when defining rectal tumor above or below the takeoff landmark. The reliability of measuring the distance from the anal verge to the sigmoid takeoff was 0.712. Conclusion: Overall, the study found a moderate reliability in assessing the location of the sigmoid takeoff, with a low difference in the distance measuring, as well as a good consensus concerning the determination of tumors in relation to the sigmoid takeoff. Routine implementation of this information within the report seems reasonable.

Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus

Objectives

To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them.

Methods

A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists.

Results

Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes.

Conclusions

The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

Key Points

• Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer.

• A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes.

• These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

MRI interobserver reliability in rectal tumor angulation

Background

When rectal tumors are examined using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) the perpendicular angulation of the axial T2-weighted image to the tumor axis is essential for a correct measure of the shortest distance between tumor and mesorectal facia.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the interobserver variability in rectal tumor angulation between a radiologist and a radiographer.

Material and Methods

Two observers performed the angulation independently. All MRI examinations were performed using an MRI 1.5 Tesla unit. A Bland–Altman plot was used to assess the interobserver variance and Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistic was used to assess the interobserver reliability.

Results

MRI was performed in 55 patients with rectal cancer during a one-year period (25 (45.5%) women and 30 (54.5%) men). The median age was 71 years (range 46–87 years). The rectal tumor mean length was 3.9 cm. The interobserver reliability was good (ICC = 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.72–0.90).

Conclusion

Radiographers receiving training will be able to perform MRI rectal tumor angulation.