The influence of endorectal filling on rectal cancer staging with MRI

Impact of endorectal filling on interobserver variability of MRI based rectal primary tumor delineation

Background

Online adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy allows for the reduction of safety margins in dose escalated treatment of rectal tumors. With the use of smaller margins, precise tumor delineation becomes more critical. In the present study we investigated the impact of rectal ultrasound gel filling on interobserver variability in delineation of primary rectal tumor volumes.

Methods

Six patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were scanned on a 1.5 T MRI-Linac without (MRI_e) and with application of 100 cc of ultrasound gel transanally (MRI_f). Eight international radiation oncologists expert in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers delineated the gross tumor volume (GTV) on both MRI scans. MRI_f scans were provided to the participating centers after MRI_e scans had been returned. Interobserver variability was analyzed by either comparing the observers' delineations with a reference delineation (approach 1) and by building all possible pairs between observers (approach 2). Dice Similarity Index (DICE) and 95 % Hausdorff-Distance (95 %HD) were calculated.

Results

Rectal ultrasound gel filling was well tolerated by all patients. Overall, interobserver agreement was superior in MRI_f scans based on median DICE (0.81 vs 0.74, p < 0.005 for approach 1 and 0.76 vs 0.64, p < 0.0001 for approach 2) and 95 %HD (6.9 mm vs 4.2 mm for approach 1, p = 0.04 and 8.9 mm vs 6.1 mm, p = 0.04 for approach 2). Delineated median tumor volumes and inter-quartile ranges were 26.99 cc [18.01-50.34 cc] in MRI_e and 44.20 [19.72-61.59 cc] in MRI_f scans respectively, p = 0.012.

Conclusions

Although limited by the small number of patients, in this study the application of rectal ultrasound gel resulted in higher interobserver agreement in rectal GTV delineation. The endorectal gel filling might be a useful tool for future dose escalation strategies.

An MRI-based pelvimetry nomogram for predicting surgical difficulty of transabdominal resection in patients with middle and low rectal cancer

Objective

The current work aimed to develop a nomogram comprised of MRI-based pelvimetry and clinical factors for predicting the difficulty of rectal surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (RC).

Methods

Consecutive mid to low RC cases who underwent transabdominal resection between June 2020 and August 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out for identifying factors (clinical factors and MRI-based pelvimetry parameters) independently associated with the difficulty level of rectal surgery. A nomogram model was established with the selected parameters for predicting the probability of high surgical difficulty. The predictive ability of the nomogram model was assessed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results

A total of 122 cases were included. BMI (OR = 1.269, p = 0.006), pelvic inlet (OR = 1.057, p = 0.024) and intertuberous distance (OR = 0.938, p = 0.001) independently predicted surgical difficulty level in multivariate logistic regression analysis. The nomogram model combining these predictors had an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.801 (95% CI: 0.719–0.868) for the prediction of a high level of surgical difficulty. The DCA suggested that using the nomogram to predict surgical difficulty provided a clinical benefit.

Conclusions

The nomogram model is feasible for predicting the difficulty level of rectal surgery, utilizing MRI-based pelvimetry parameters and clinical factors in mid to low RC cases.

Is rectal filling optimal for MRI-based radiomics in preoperative T staging of rectal cancer?

PURPOSE

To determine whether rectal filling with ultrasound gel is clinically more beneficial in preoperative T staging of patients with rectal cancer (RC) using radiomics model based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

A total of 94 RC patients were assigned to cohort 1 (leave-one-out cross-validation [LOO-CV] set) and 230 RC patients were assigned to cohort 2 (test set). Patients were grouped according to different pathological T stages. The radiomics features were extracted through high-resolution T2-weighted imaging for all volume of interests in the two cohorts. Optimal features were selected using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm. Model 1 (without rectal filling) and model 2 (with rectal filling) were constructed. LOO-CV was adopted for radiomics model building in cohort 1. Thereafter, the cohort 2 was used to test and verify the effectiveness of the two models.

RESULTS

Totally, 204 patients were enrolled, including 60 cases in cohort 1 and 144 cases in cohort 2. Finally, seven optimal features with LASSO were selected to build model 1 and nine optimal features were used for model 2. The ROC curves showed an AUC of 0.806 and 0.946 for model 1 and model 2 in cohort 1, respectively, and an AUC of 0.783 and 0.920 for model 1 and model 2 in cohort 2, respectively (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

The radiomics model with rectal filling showed an advantage for differentiating T1 + 2 from T3 and had less inaccurate categories in the test cohort, suggesting that this model may be useful for T-stage evaluation.

Accuracy of MRI for predicting anterior peritoneal reflection involvement in locally advanced rectal cancer: a comparison with operative findings

PURPOSE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative rectal MRI for anterior peritoneal reflection (APR) involvement in rectal cancer through comparison with the surgeon's operative findings.

METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was waived. We enrolled 55 consecutive patients with suspected locally advanced mid-to-upper rectal cancer. All patients underwent rectal MRI using a 3T system. APR involvement in rectal cancer was assessed radiologically using a 5-point scale by two independent board-certified abdominal radiologists. The surgeon's evaluation during surgery was regarded as the gold standard for APR involvement. The accuracy of rectal MRI in predicting APR involvement was obtained.

RESULTS

Rectal MRI showed good APR identification (rater 1, 92.7%; rater 2, 94.7%). On preoperative rectal MRI, rater 1 diagnosed 19 (34.5%) patients as having APR involvement and rater 2 diagnosed 28 (50.9%) as having APR involvement. There was moderate agreement (κ = 0.602, p < 0.001) between the two raters with regard to the evaluation of APR involvement. During surgery, the surgeon confirmed APR involvement in 13 (23.6%) patients. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of preoperative MRI for APR involvement were 69.2%, 76.2%, 47.4%, and 88.9%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for predicting APR involvement was 74.6%.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative rectal MRI provides accurate anatomical information regarding APR involvement with high conspicuity. However, MRI has relatively low sensitivity (< 70%) and a low PPV (< 50%) with regard to the assessment of APR involvement in rectal tumors. Both rater 1 and rater 2 evaluated these images as positive involvement of APR. The patient underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection after preoperative evaluation. However, during surgery, the surgeon evaluated APR involvement as negative, and the final pathologic staging was confirmed as T3.

A novel approach for radiotherapy dose escalation in rectal cancer using online MR-guidance and rectal ultrasound gel filling - Rationale and first in human

INTRODUCTION

Dose escalated radiotherapy has previously been investigated as a strategy to increase complete response rates in rectal cancer. However large safety margins are required using cone-beam computed tomography guided radiotherapy leading to high doses to organs at risk or insufficient target volume coverage in order to keep dose constraints. We herein present the first clinical application of a new technique for dose escalation in rectal cancer using online magnetic resonance (MR)-guidance and rectal ultrasound gel filling.

METHODS

A 73-year-old patient with distal cT3a cN0 cM0 rectal cancer was referred for definitive radiochemotherapy with the goal of organ preservation after multidisciplinary discussion. A dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions with a stereotactic integrated boost to the primary tumor of 50 Gy with concomitant 5-fluorouracil was prescribed. Furthermore, a boost to the primary tumor with 3 Gy per fraction using the adapt-to-shape workflow on a 1.5 T MR-Linac was planned once weekly. For the boost fractions 100 cc of ultrasound gel was applied rectally in order to improve tumor visibility and distancing of uninvolved rectal mucosa. In order to determine the required planning target volume margin diagnostic scans of ten rectal cancer patients conducted with rectal ultrasound gel filling were studied.

RESULTS

Based on the ten diagnostic scans an average isotropic margin of 4 mm was found to be sufficient to cover 95% of the target volume during an online adaptive workflow. Three boost fractions were applied, mean treatment duration was 22:34 min. Treatment was well tolerated by the patient with no more than PRO-CTCAE grade I° toxicity of any kind. The rectal ultrasound gel filling resulted in superior visibility of the tumor and reduced the dose to the involved mucosa especially in the high dose range compared with a boost plan calculated without any filling. A considerable tumor shrinkage was observed during treatment from 17.43 cc at baseline to 4 cc in week four.

CONCLUSION

This novel method appears to be a simple but effective strategy for dose escalated radiotherapy in rectal cancer. Based on the encouraging observation, a prospective trial is currently under preparation.

Guidelines for MR imaging in rectal cancer: Europe versus United States

The aim of this study was to compare and contrast recently published guidelines for staging and reporting of MR imaging in rectal cancer from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and the North American Society of Abdominal Radiology. These guidelines were assessed on the presence of consensus and disagreement. Items were compared by two reviewers, and items with agreement and disagreement between the guidelines were identified and are presented in the current paper. Differences between guidelines are discussed to offer insights in practice variations between both continents and among expert centers, which to some extent may explain the differences between guidelines.

Current controversy, confusion, and imprecision in the use and interpretation of rectal MRI

There has been a rapid increase in the utilization of MRI in rectal cancer staging in the USA essentially replacing endorectal ultrasound and mimicking the trend in Europe seen in the 1990s and 2000s. Accompanying this trend, there is a demand, and recognized need, for greater precision and clarification of confusing, misunderstood and poorly understood concepts, facts, statements and nomenclature regarding rectal cancer and the use of pelvic MRI for diagnosis. As such, this Review, part evidence-based and part expert opinion, will attempt to elucidate and clarify several concepts the authors have encountered in 25 years of imaging rectal cancer, focusing on MRI.

Current controversy, confusion, and imprecision in the use and interpretation of rectal MRI

There has been a rapid increase in the utilization of MRI in rectal cancer staging in the USA essentially replacing endorectal ultrasound and mimicking the trend in Europe seen in the 1990s and 2000s. Accompanying this trend, there is a demand, and recognized need, for greater precision and clarification of confusing, misunderstood and poorly understood concepts, facts, statements and nomenclature regarding rectal cancer and the use of pelvic MRI for diagnosis. As such, this Review, part evidence-based and part expert opinion, will attempt to elucidate and clarify several concepts the authors have encountered in 25 years of imaging rectal cancer, focusing on MRI.

Use of magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer patients: Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) rectal cancer disease-focused panel (DFP) recommendations 2017

PURPOSE

To propose guidelines based on an expert-panel-derived unified approach to the technical performance, interpretation, and reporting of MRI for baseline and post-treatment staging of rectal carcinoma.

METHODS

A consensus-based questionnaire adopted with permission and modified from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiologists was sent to a 17-member expert panel from the Rectal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology containing 268 question parts. Consensus on an answer was defined as ≥ 70% agreement. Answers not reaching consensus (< 70%) were noted.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for 87% of items from which recommendations regarding patient preparation, technical performance, pulse sequence acquisition, and criteria for MRI assessment at initial staging and restaging exams and for MRI reporting were constructed.

CONCLUSION

These expert consensus recommendations can be used as guidelines for primary and post-treatment staging of rectal cancer using MRI.