Additional Value of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT Comparing to MRI in Treatment Approach of Anal Cancer Patients

Comparison between pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT in baseline staging and radiation planning of anal squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the differences in baseline staging of anal squamous cell carcinoma based on CT, MRI, and PET/CT, and the resultant impact on the radiation plan.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent baseline pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT (all examinations within 3 weeks of each other) from January 2010 to April 2020. CTs, MRIs, and PET/CTs were re-interpreted by three separate radiologists. Several imaging features were assessed; tumor stage was determined based on the eight edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual; and T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) categories were determined based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Radiologist assessments were then randomly presented to a radiation oncologist who formulated the radiation plan in a blinded fashion.

RESULTS

Across 28 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 31-78], T-category classification was significantly different on PET/CT compared to MRI and CT (p = 0.037 and 0.031, respectively). PET/CT staged a higher proportion of patients with T1/T2 disease (16/28, 57%) compared to MRI (11/28, 39%) and CT (10/28, 36%). MRI staged a higher proportion of patients with T3/T4 disease (14/28, 50%) compared to CT (12/28, 43%) and PET/CT (11/28, 39%). However, there was no significant difference between the three imaging modalities in terms of either N-category, AJCC staging, or NCCN TNM group classification, or in treatment planning.

CONCLUSION

Our exploratory study showed that MRI demonstrated a higher proportion of T3/T4 tumors, while PET/CT demonstrated more T1/T2 tumors; however, MRI, CT, and PET/CT did not show any significant differences in AJCC and TNM group categories, nor was there any significant difference in treatment doses between them when assessed independently by an experienced radiation oncologist.

MRI morphological characteristics of lymph nodes in anal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Pre-treatment staging of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) includes pelvic MRI and [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT). MRI criteria to define lymph node metastases (LNMs) in ASCC are currently lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the morphological characteristics of lymph nodes (LNs) on MRI in ASCC patients with PET-CT-positive LNs.

METHODS

ASCC patients treated at Skåne University Hospital between 2009 and 2017 were eligible for inclusion if at least one positive LN according to PET-CT and a pre-treatment MRI were present. All PET-CT-positive LNs and PET-CT-negative LNs were retrospectively identified on baseline MRI. Each LN was independently classified according to pre-determined morphological characteristics by two radiologists blinded to clinical patient information.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven ASCC patients were included, with a total of 181 PET-CT-positive LNs identified on baseline MRI with a median short-axis diameter of 9.0 mm (range 7.5-12 mm). MRI morphological characteristics of PET-CT-positive LNs included regular contour (87%), round shape (89%), and homogeneous signal intensity on T2-weighed images (67%). An additional 78 PET-CT-negative LNs were identified on MRI. These 78 LNs had a median size of 6.8 mm (range 5.5-8.0 mm). The majority of PET-CT-negative LNs had a regular contour, round shape, and a homogeneous signal that was congruent to the primary tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

There are MRI-specific morphological characteristics for pelvic LNs in ASCC. PET-CT-positive and negative LNs share similar morphological features apart from size, with PET-CT-positive LNs being significantly larger. Further studies are needed to determine discrimination criteria for LNM in ASCC.

[18F]-FDG PET in anal canal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To provide comprehensive data on the diagnostic and prognostic value of [18F]-FDG PET (PET) in anal canal cancer patients.

METHODS

This study was designed following the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. For the meta-analysis, published original articles (until December 2022) that met the following criteria were included: Evaluated PET for locoregional and/or distant disease detection in patients with histopathology-proven anal canal cancer; Compared PET with a valid reference standard; Provided crude data to calculate meta-analytic estimates. Diagnostic measurements from subgroups were calculated in evaluating primary tumour detection, T stage, lymph node and distant metastases. Articles providing prognostic information on PET were also reported as a systematic review. For pooled meta-analytic calculations, the hierarchical method was used. The bivariate model was conducted to find the summary estimates. Analyses were performed using STATA 16.

RESULTS

After the screening, 28 studies were eligible to enter the meta-analytic calculations, and data from 15 were reported descriptively. For distinguishing T3/T4 from other T-stages, PET had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 91%(95%CI:72%-97%) and 96%(95%CI:88%-98%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting metastatic (regional and/or distant) disease were 100% (95%CI:82%-100%) and 95% (95%CI:90%-98%), respectively. For therapy response assessment, the sensitivity and specificity of PET were 96%(95%CI:78%-99%) and 86%(95%CI:75%-93%), respectively. Higher pre-treatment total metabolic tumour volume was predictive of poorer survival. Conversely, for those achieving complete metabolic response, the 2-year PFS was 94%(95%CI:91%-97%) versus 51%(95%CI:42%-59%) for others (p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PET may be a useful tool for anal canal cancer therapy planning and provides valuable prognostic information.

Imaging of Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Survey Results and Expert Opinion from the Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology

The role and method of image-based staging of anal cancer has evolved with the rapid development of newer imaging modalities and the need to address the rising incidence of this rare cancer. In 2014, the European Society of Medical Oncology mandated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer and subsequently other societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network followed suit with similar recommendations. Nevertheless, great variability exists from center to center and even within individual centers. Notably, this is in stark contrast to the imaging of the anatomically nearby rectal cancer. As participating team members for this malignancy, we embarked on a comprehensive literature review of anal cancer imaging to understand the relative merits of these new technologies which developed after computed tomography (CT), e.g., MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The results of this literature review helped to inform our next stage: questionnaire development regarding the imaging of anal cancer. Next, we distributed the questionnaire to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Rectal and Anal Disease-Focused Panel, a group of abdominal radiologists with special interest, experience, and expertise in rectal and anal cancer, to provide expert radiologist opinion on the appropriate anal cancer imaging strategy. In our expert opinion survey, experts advocated the use of MRI in general (65% overall and 91-100% for primary staging clinical scenarios) and acknowledged the superiority of PET/CT for nodal assessment (52-56% agreement for using PET/CT in primary staging clinical scenarios compared to 30% for using MRI). We therefore support the use of MRI and PET and suggest further exploration of PET/MRI as an optimal combined evaluation. Our questionnaire responses emphasized the heterogeneity in imaging practice as performed at numerous academic cancer centers across the United States and underscore the need for further reconciliation and establishment of best imaging practice guidelines for optimized patient care in anal cancer.

Special Issue: Emerging Technologies for Medical Imaging Diagnostics, Monitoring and Therapy of Cancers

Molecular imaging and therapy play an increasingly important role in the field of "precision medicine" as an emergent prospect for management of the cancerous disease [...].

Survival and Operative Outcomes After Salvage Surgery for Recurrent or Persistent Anal Cancer

Anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a relatively rare cancer comprising less than 2.5% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. The standard treatment for anal SCC is primary chemoradiation therapy which can result in complete regression. After successful treatment, the 5-year survival is approximately 80%. However, up to 30% of patients experience recurrent persistent or recurrent disease. The role of surgery in the treatment of anal cancer, therefore, is limited to the management of recurrent or persistent disease with abdominoperineal resection and/or en bloc adjacent organ excision. Salvage surgery after irradiated anal cancer can be technically demanding in terms of acquisition of oncologically safe surgical margins and minimization of postoperative morbidity. In addition, 5-year survival outcomes after salvage resection have been reported to vary from 23% to 69%. Positive resection margins are generally regarded as the important risk factor associated with poor survival outcome. Perineal wound complications are the most common major postoperative morbidity. Because of the challenges of primary wound closure after salvage abdominoperineal resection, myocutaneous flap reconstruction has been performed to reduce the severity of perianal would complications. We, therefore, descriptively reviewed contemporary published evidence describing the treatment and outcomes after salvage surgery for persistent or recurrent anal SCC.