1
|
Kaur H, Gabriel H, Awiwi MO, Maheshwari E, Lopes Vendrami C, Konishi T, Taggart MW, Magnetta M, Kelahan LC, Lee S. Anatomic Basis of Rectal Cancer Staging: Clarifying Controversies and Misconceptions. Radiographics 2024; 44:e230203. [PMID: 38900679 DOI: 10.1148/rg.230203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/22/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harmeet Kaur
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Helena Gabriel
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Muhammad O Awiwi
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Ekta Maheshwari
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Camila Lopes Vendrami
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Tsuyoshi Konishi
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Melissa W Taggart
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Michael Magnetta
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Linda C Kelahan
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| | - Sonia Lee
- From the Departments of Abdominal Imaging (H.K.), Colon and Rectal Surgery (T.K.), and Anatomical Pathology (M.W.T.), University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, PO Box 301402, Unit 1473, Houston, TX 77230-1402; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill (H.G., C.L.V., L.C.K.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Tex (M.O.A.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa (E.M.); Department of Radiology, Endeavor Health Medical Group, Evanston, Ill (M.M.); and Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, Calif (S.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hazen SMJA, Sluckin TC, Horsthuis K, Lambregts DMJ, Beets-Tan RGH, Hompes R, Buffart TE, Marijnen CAM, Tanis PJ, Kusters M. Impact of the new rectal cancer definition on multimodality treatment and interhospital variability: Results from a nationwide cross-sectional study. Colorectal Dis 2024; 26:1131-1144. [PMID: 38682286 DOI: 10.1111/codi.17002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2023] [Revised: 09/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/19/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sanne-Marije J A Hazen
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tania C Sluckin
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Karin Horsthuis
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Regina G H Beets-Tan
- Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Roel Hompes
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Tineke E Buffart
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Corrie A M Marijnen
- Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J Tanis
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Miranda Kusters
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hazen SJA, Sluckin TC, Horsthuis K, Lambregts DMJ, Beets-Tan RGH, Tanis PJ, Kusters M. An updated evaluation of the implementation of the sigmoid take-off landmark 1 year after the official introduction in the Netherlands. Tech Coloproctol 2023; 27:1243-1250. [PMID: 37184772 PMCID: PMC10638143 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02803-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 04/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S J A Hazen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T C Sluckin
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K Horsthuis
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Radiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D M J Lambregts
- Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R G H Beets-Tan
- Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - P J Tanis
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Medical Center, Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Kusters
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lee MH, Kim DH. Low Rectal Cancers at Initial Staging MRI. Radiographics 2023; 43:e230080. [PMID: 37796727 DOI: 10.1148/rg.230080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/07/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew H Lee
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792
| | - David H Kim
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nougaret S, Rousset P, Lambregts DMJ, Maas M, Gormly K, Lucidarme O, Brunelle S, Milot L, Arrivé L, Salut C, Pilleul F, Hordonneau C, Baudin G, Soyer P, Brun V, Laurent V, Savoye-Collet C, Petkovska I, Gerard JP, Cotte E, Rouanet P, Catalano O, Denost Q, Tan RB, Frulio N, Hoeffel C. MRI restaging of rectal cancer: The RAC (Response-Anal canal-CRM) analysis joint consensus guidelines of the GRERCAR and GRECCAR groups. Diagn Interv Imaging 2023; 104:311-322. [PMID: 36949002 DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2023.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 03/18/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Nougaret
- Department of Radiology IRCM, Montpellier Cancer Research Institute, 34000 Montpellier, France; INSERM, U1194, University of Montpellier, 34295, Montpellier, France.
| | - Pascal Rousset
- Department of Radiology, CHU Lyon-Sud, EMR 3738 CICLY, Université Claude-Bernard Lyon 1, 69495 Pierre-Benite, France
| | - Doenja M J Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kirsten Gormly
- Jones Radiology, Kurralta Park, 5037, Australia; University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
| | - Oliver Lucidarme
- Department of Radiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, AP-HP, 75013 Paris, France; LIB, INSERM, CNRS, UMR7371-U1146, Sorbonne Université, 75013 Paris, France
| | - Serge Brunelle
- Department of Radiology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, 13009 Marseille, France
| | - Laurent Milot
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, University of Lyon, 69003 Lyon, France
| | - Lionel Arrivé
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, AP-HP, 75012 Paris, France; Sorbonne Université, 75013 Paris, France
| | - Celine Salut
- CHU de Bordeaux, Department of Radiology, Université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France
| | - Franck Pilleul
- Department of Radiology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France Univ Lyon, INSA-Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, UJM-Saint Etienne, CNRS, Inserm, CREATIS UMR 5220, U1206, 69621, Lyon, France
| | | | - Guillaume Baudin
- Department of Radiology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, 06100 Nice, France
| | - Philippe Soyer
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Cochin, AP-HP, 75014 Paris, France; Université Paris Cité, 75006 Paris, France
| | - Vanessa Brun
- Department of Radiology, CHU Hôpital Pontchaillou, 35000 Rennes, France
| | - Valérie Laurent
- Department of Radiology, Nancy University Hospital, Université de Lorraine, 54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
| | | | - Iva Petkovska
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Jean-Pierre Gerard
- Department of Radiotherapy, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, 06000 Nice, France
| | - Eddy Cotte
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, 69310 Pierre Bénite, France; Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
| | - Philippe Rouanet
- Department of Surgery, Institut Régional du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier Cancer Research Institute, INSERM U1194, University of Montpellier, 34295, Montpellier, France
| | - Onofrio Catalano
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA 02129, USA
| | - Quentin Denost
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Haut-Lévèque, Université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France
| | - Regina Beets Tan
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nora Frulio
- CHU de Bordeaux, Department of Radiology, Université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France
| | - Christine Hoeffel
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Robert Debré & CRESTIC, URCA, 51092 Reims, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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
|
7
|
International survey among surgeons on the perioperative management of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:1901-1915. [PMID: 36258001 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09702-z] [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: 05/25/2022] [Accepted: 10/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
8
|
Bogveradze N, Maas M, El Khababi N, Schurink NW, Lahaye MJ, Bakers FC, Tanis PJ, Kusters M, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM. Pelvic CT in addition to MRI to differentiate between rectal and sigmoid cancer on imaging using the sigmoid take-off as a landmark. Acta Radiol 2023; 64:467-472. [PMID: 35404168 DOI: 10.1177/02841851221091209] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nino Bogveradze
- Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,GROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, 5211University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, American Hospital Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Najim El Khababi
- Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,GROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, 5211University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Niels W Schurink
- Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,GROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, 5211University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Max J Lahaye
- Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frans Ch Bakers
- Department of Radiology, 199236Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter J Tanis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, 6993Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Miranda Kusters
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, 1209University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- GROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, 5211University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgery, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Regina Gh Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,GROW School for Oncology & Developmental Biology, 5211University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| | - Doenja Mj Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, 1228The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bogveradze N, Snaebjornsson P, Grotenhuis BA, van Triest B, Lahaye MJ, Maas M, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ. MRI anatomy of the rectum: key concepts important for rectal cancer staging and treatment planning. Insights Imaging 2023; 14:13. [PMID: 36652149 PMCID: PMC9849549 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01348-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Accepted: 12/04/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nino Bogveradze
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.5012.60000 0001 0481 6099GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands ,Department of Radiology, American Hospital Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia
| | - Petur Snaebjornsson
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Brechtje A. Grotenhuis
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Baukelien van Triest
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Max J. Lahaye
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L. Beets
- grid.5012.60000 0001 0481 6099GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands ,grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Regina G. H. Beets-Tan
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.5012.60000 0001 0481 6099GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands ,grid.10825.3e0000 0001 0728 0170Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Doenja M. J. Lambregts
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
FECC-Net: A Novel Feature Enhancement and Context Capture Network Based on Brain MRI Images for Lesion Segmentation. Brain Sci 2022; 12:brainsci12060765. [PMID: 35741650 PMCID: PMC9221241 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12060765] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2022] [Revised: 05/25/2022] [Accepted: 06/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
11
|
Pedersen MRV, Otto PO, Vagn-Hansen C, Sørensen T, Rafaelsen SR. Interobserver Reliability and the Sigmoid Takeoff—An Interobserver Study. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14112802. [PMID: 35681783 PMCID: PMC9179340 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112802] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Revised: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Malene Roland Vils Pedersen
- Department of Radiology, Clinical Cancer Centre, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 7100 Vejle, Denmark; (P.O.O.); (C.V.-H.); (T.S.); (S.R.R.)
- Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19, 5230 Odense, Denmark
- Correspondence:
| | - Peter Obel Otto
- Department of Radiology, Clinical Cancer Centre, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 7100 Vejle, Denmark; (P.O.O.); (C.V.-H.); (T.S.); (S.R.R.)
| | - Chris Vagn-Hansen
- Department of Radiology, Clinical Cancer Centre, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 7100 Vejle, Denmark; (P.O.O.); (C.V.-H.); (T.S.); (S.R.R.)
| | - Torben Sørensen
- Department of Radiology, Clinical Cancer Centre, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 7100 Vejle, Denmark; (P.O.O.); (C.V.-H.); (T.S.); (S.R.R.)
| | - Søren Rafael Rafaelsen
- Department of Radiology, Clinical Cancer Centre, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, 7100 Vejle, Denmark; (P.O.O.); (C.V.-H.); (T.S.); (S.R.R.)
- Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 19, 5230 Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Lambregts DMJ, Bogveradze N, Blomqvist LK, Fokas E, Garcia-Aguilar J, Glimelius B, Gollub MJ, Konishi T, Marijnen CAM, Nagtegaal ID, Nilsson PJ, Perez RO, Snaebjornsson P, Taylor SA, Tolan DJM, Valentini V, West NP, Wolthuis A, Lahaye MJ, Maas M, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RGH. 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. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:4991-5003. [PMID: 35254485 PMCID: PMC9213337 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08591-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2021] [Revised: 12/22/2021] [Accepted: 01/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Doenja M J Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Nino Bogveradze
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, American Hospital Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia
| | - Lennart K Blomqvist
- Department of Imaging and Physiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Emmanouil Fokas
- Department of Radiooncology, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Frankfurt Cancer Institute (FCI), University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Julio Garcia-Aguilar
- Department of Surgery, Colorectal Service, Benno C. Schmidt Chair in Surgical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Bengt Glimelius
- Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Marc J Gollub
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Tsuyoshi Konishi
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Corrie A M Marijnen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Iris D Nagtegaal
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Per J Nilsson
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Division of Coloproctology, Pelvic Cancer Center, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Rodrigo O Perez
- Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz & Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Petur Snaebjornsson
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Stuart A Taylor
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Damian J M Tolan
- Department of Radiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Vincenzo Valentini
- Department of Bioimaging, Radiation Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Università Cattolica S. Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Nicholas P West
- Pathology & Data Analytics, Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Albert Wolthuis
- Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Max J Lahaye
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Regina G H Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, P.O. Box 90203, 1006 BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Pedersen MR, Otto PO, Precht H, Rafaelsen SR. MRI interobserver reliability in rectal tumor angulation. Acta Radiol Open 2022; 11:20584601221081292. [PMID: 35223087 PMCID: PMC8874163 DOI: 10.1177/20584601221081292] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Malene Rv Pedersen
- Department of Radiology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.,Department of Regional Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Danish Colorectal Center South, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.,Department of Radiology, Kolding hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark
| | - Peter O Otto
- Department of Radiology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Helle Precht
- Department of Regional Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Radiology, Kolding hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark.,Health Sciences Research Centre, University College Lillebælt, Svendborg, Denmark
| | - Søren R Rafaelsen
- Department of Radiology, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.,Department of Regional Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,Danish Colorectal Center South, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|