1
|
Nougaret S, Lambregts DMJ, Beets GL, Beets-Tan RGH, Blomqvist L, Burling D, Denost Q, Gambacorta MA, Gui B, Klopp A, Lakhman Y, Maturen KE, Manfredi R, Petkovska I, Russo L, Shinagare AB, Stephenson JA, Tolan D, Venkatesan AM, Quyn AJ, Forstner R. Imaging in pelvic exenteration-a multidisciplinary practice guide from the ESGAR-SAR-ESUR-PelvEx collaborative group. Eur Radiol 2024:10.1007/s00330-024-10940-z. [PMID: 39181949 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10940-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2024] [Revised: 05/04/2024] [Accepted: 06/16/2024] [Indexed: 08/27/2024]
Abstract
Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a radical surgical approach designed for the curative treatment of advanced pelvic malignancies, requiring en-bloc resection of multiple pelvic organs. While the procedure is radical, it has shown promise in enhancing long-term survival and is now comparable in surgical mortality to elective resections for primary pelvic cancers. Imaging plays a crucial role in preoperative planning, with MRI, CT, and PET/CT being pivotal in assessing the extent of cancer and formulating a surgical roadmap. This paper presents clinical practice guidelines for imaging in the context of PE, developed jointly by ESGAR, SAR, ESUR, and the PelvEx Collaborative. These guidelines aim to standardize imaging protocols and reporting to improve the preoperative assessment and facilitate decision-making in the multidisciplinary treatment of pelvic cancers. Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our recommendations underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the need for clear and precise imaging reports to optimize patient care. KEY POINTS: MRI is mandatory for local staging in pelvic exenteration. Structured reporting (using the template provided in this guide) is recommended. Multidisciplinary review of imaging is critical for surgical planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Nougaret
- Department of Radiology, PINKCC lab, U1194, Montpellier Cancer Center, Montpellier, France.
| | - Doenja M J Lambregts
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Regina G H Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lennart Blomqvist
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden & Department of Radiation Physics/Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden
| | - David Burling
- Intestinal Imaging Centre, St Mark's Hospital, London North West University Healthcare NHS, London, UK
| | - Quentin Denost
- Bordeaux ColoRectal institute, Clinique Tivoli, Bordeaux, France
| | - Maria A Gambacorta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Benedetta Gui
- Department of Bioimaging, Radiation Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Ann Klopp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yulia Lakhman
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kate E Maturen
- Departments of Radiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Riccardo Manfredi
- Department of Bioimaging, Radiation Oncology and Hematology, UOC of Radiodiagnostica Presidio Columbus, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCSS, Rome, Italy
| | - Iva Petkovska
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Luca Russo
- Department of Bioimaging, Radiation Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Atul B Shinagare
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - James A Stephenson
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Damian Tolan
- Department of Radiology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Aradhana M Venkatesan
- Department of Abdominal Imaging, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Aaron J Quyn
- John Goligher Colorectal Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
CT findings after pelvic exenteration: review of normal appearances and most common complications. Radiol Med 2019; 124:693-703. [PMID: 30806919 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-019-01009-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2018] [Accepted: 02/11/2019] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this review is to illustrate normal computed tomography (CT) findings and the most common complications in patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for advanced, persistent or recurrent gynecological cancers. We review the various surgical techniques used in PE, discuss optimal CT protocols for postsurgical evaluation and describe cross-sectional imaging appearances of normal postoperative anatomic changes as well as early and late complications. The interpretation of abdominopelvic CT imaging after PE is very challenging due to remarkable modifications of normal anatomy. After this radical pelvic surgery, the familiarity with expected CT appearances is crucial for diagnosis and appropriate management of potentially life-threatening complications in patients who underwent PE.
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Pelvic recurrence following curative resection for colorectal carcinoma continues to pose a challenge to the oncologist despite current multimodality therapy. Pelvic exenteration with or without sacral resection may provide long-term disease-free survival and a chance of cure for a small subset of patients in whom the recurrent disease is confined to the pelvis and can be resected with "clear" margins. For others with residual disease, exenteration may offer good palliation for the intractable symptoms, but no survival advantage. The clinical decision to perform exenteration with palliative intent must be individualized. This is generally not advised because of the short life expectancy in the face of prolonged convalescence. This technically demanding procedure is associated with significant morbidity, especially in patients with prior pelvic radiation. Current advances in urinary diversion and methods of pelvic reconstruction may significantly reduce these problems. The surgeon's experience and careful patient selection remain the most important determinants of success with this operation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R S Yeung
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Advances in diagnostic imaging of the female genital tract facilitate characterization of many pelvic masses. Preoperative assessment of gynecologic malignant tumors provides information that may alter the surgical approach or timing of radiation therapy. Image-guided biopsy accurately confirms recurrent malignant lesions. Transcervical techniques have improved diagnostic assessment of infertile couples; thus, effective and inexpensive treatment options can be offered. Postoperative complications of gynecologic procedures can be detected with imaging, and many can be treated with image-guided techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L A Binkovitz
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905
| | | | | |
Collapse
|