Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of region of interest (ROI) size and positioning on tumour ADC measurements and interobserver variability in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS: Forty-six LARC patients were retrospectively included. Patients underwent MRI including DWI (b0,500,1000) before and 6-8 weeks after chemoradiation (CRT). Two readers measured mean tumour ADCs (pre- and post-CRT) according to three ROI protocols: whole-volume, single-slice or small solid samples. The three protocols were compared for differences in ADC, SD and interobserver variability (measured as the intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC). RESULTS: ICC for the whole-volume ROIs was excellent (0.91) pre-CRT versus good (0.66) post-CRT. ICCs were 0.53 and 0.42 for the single-slice ROIs versus 0.60 and 0.65 for the sample ROIs. Pre-CRT ADCs for the sample ROIs were significantly lower than for the whole-volume or single-slice ROIs. Post-CRT there were no significant differences between the whole-volume ROIs and the single-slice or sample ROIs, respectively. The SDs for the whole-volume and single-slice ROIs were significantly larger than for the sample ROIs. CONCLUSIONS: ROI size and positioning have a considerable influence on tumour ADC values and interobserver variability. Interobserver variability is worse after CRT. ADCs obtained from the whole tumour volume provide the most reproducible results. Key Points • ROI size and positioning influence tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer • ROI size and positioning influence interobserver variability of tumour ADC measurements • ADC measurements of the whole tumour volume provide the most reproducible results • Tumour ADC measurements are more reproducible before, rather than after, chemoradiation treatment • Variations caused by ROI size and positioning should be taken into account when using ADC as a biomarker for tumour response

Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of region of interest (ROI) size and positioning on tumour ADC measurements and interobserver variability in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS: Forty-six LARC patients were retrospectively included. Patients underwent MRI including DWI (b0,500,1000) before and 6-8 weeks after chemoradiation (CRT). Two readers measured mean tumour ADCs (pre- and post-CRT) according to three ROI protocols: whole-volume, single-slice or small solid samples. The three protocols were compared for differences in ADC, SD and interobserver variability (measured as the intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC). RESULTS: ICC for the whole-volume ROIs was excellent (0.91) pre-CRT versus good (0.66) post-CRT. ICCs were 0.53 and 0.42 for the single-slice ROIs versus 0.60 and 0.65 for the sample ROIs. Pre-CRT ADCs for the sample ROIs were significantly lower than for the whole-volume or single-slice ROIs. Post-CRT there were no significant differences between the whole-volume ROIs and the single-slice or sample ROIs, respectively. The SDs for the whole-volume and single-slice ROIs were significantly larger than for the sample ROIs. CONCLUSIONS: ROI size and positioning have a considerable influence on tumour ADC values and interobserver variability. Interobserver variability is worse after CRT. ADCs obtained from the whole tumour volume provide the most reproducible results. Key Points • ROI size and positioning influence tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer • ROI size and positioning influence interobserver variability of tumour ADC measurements • ADC measurements of the whole tumour volume provide the most reproducible results • Tumour ADC measurements are more reproducible before, rather than after, chemoradiation treatment • Variations caused by ROI size and positioning should be taken into account when using ADC as a biomarker for tumour response

Myosteatosis predicts survival after surgery for periampullary cancer::a novel method using MRI

Background: Myosteatosis, characterized by inter-and intramyocellular fat deposition, is strongly related to poor overall survival after surgery for periampullary cancer. It is commonly assessed by calculating the muscle radiation attenuation on computed tomography (CT) scans. However, since magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is replacing CT in routine diagnostic work-up, developing methods based on MRI is important. We developed a new method using MRI-muscle signal intensity to assess myosteatosis and compared it with CT-muscle radiation attenuation.Methods: Patients were selected from a prospective cohort of 236 surgical patients with periampullary cancer. The MRI-muscle signal intensity and CT-muscle radiation attenuation were assessed at the level of the third lumbar vertebra and related to survival.Results: Forty-seven patients were included in the study. Inter-observer variability for MRI assessment was low (R-2 = 0.94). MRI-muscle signal intensity was associated with short survival: median survival 9.8 (95%-CI: 1.5-18.1) vs. 18.2 (95%-CI: 10.7-25.8) months for high vs. low intensity, respectively (p = 0.038). Similar results were found for CT-muscle radiation attenuation (low vs. high radiation attenuation: 10.8 (95%-CI: 8.5-13.1) vs. 15.9 (95%-CI: 10.2-21.7) months, respectively; p = 0.046). MRI-signal intensity correlated negatively with CT-radiation attenuation (r=-0.614, p &lt;0.001).Conclusions: Myosteatosis may be adequately assessed using either MRI-muscle signal intensity or CT-muscle radiation attenuation.</p

T-staging of rectal cancer: accuracy of 3.0 Tesla MRI compared with 1.5 Tesla

OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not accurate in discriminating T1-2 from borderline T3 rectal tumors. Higher resolution on 3 Tesla-(3T)-MRI could improve diagnostic performance for T-staging. The aim of this study was to determine whether 3T-MRI compared with 1.5 Tesla-(1.5T)-MRI improves the accuracy for the discrimination between T1-2 and borderline T3 rectal tumors and to evaluate reproducibility. METHODS: 13 patients with non-locally advanced rectal cancer underwent imaging with both 1.5T and 3T-MRI. Three readers with different expertise evaluated the images and predicted T-stage with a confidence level score. Receiver operator characteristics curves with areas under the curve (AUC) and diagnostic parameters were calculated. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were calculated with quadratic kappa-weighting. Histology was the reference standard. RESULTS: Seven patients had pT1-2 tumors and six had pT3 tumors. AUCs ranged from 0.66 to 0.87 at 1.5T vs. 0.52-0.82 at 3T. Mean overstaging rate was 43% at 1.5T and 57% at 3T (P = 0.23). Inter-observer agreement was kappa 0.50-0.71 at 1.5T vs. 0.15-0.68 at 3T. Intra-observer agreement was kappa 0.71 at 1.5T and 0.76 at 3T. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to compare 3T with 1.5T MRI for T-staging of rectal cancer within the same patients. Our results showed no difference between 3T and 1.5T-MRI for the distinction between T1-2 and borderline T3 tumors, regardless of expertise. The higher resolution at 3T-MRI did not aid in the distinction between desmoplasia in T1-2-tumors and tumor stranding in T3-tumors. Larger studies are needed to acknowledge these findings

Gross tumour volume delineation in anal cancer on T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI - Reproducibility between radiologists and radiation oncologists and impact of reader experience level and DWI image quality

Abstract Purpose To assess how gross tumour volume (GTV) delineation in anal cancer is affected by interobserver variations between radiologists and radiation oncologists, expertise level, and use of T2-weighted MRI (T2W-MRI) vs. diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and to explore effects of DWI quality. Methods and materials We retrospectively analyzed the MRIs (T2W-MRI and b800-DWI) of 25 anal cancer patients. Four readers (Senior and Junior Radiologist; Senior and Junior Radiation Oncologist) independently delineated GTVs, first on T2W-MRI only and then on DWI (with reference to T2W-MRI). Maximum Tumour Diameter (MTD) was calculated from each GTV. Mean GTVs/MTDs were compared between readers and between T2W-MRI vs. DWI. Interobserver agreement was calculated as Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff Distance (HD). DWI image quality was assessed using a 5-point artefact scale. Results Interobserver agreement between radiologists vs. radiation oncologists and between junior vs. senior readers was good–excellent, with similar agreement for T2W-MRI and DWI (e.g. ICCs 0.72–0.94 for T2W-MRI and 0.68–0.89 for DWI). There was a trend towards smaller GTVs on DWI, but only for the radiologists (P = 0.03–0.07). Moderate-severe DWI-artefacts were observed in 11/25 (44%) cases. Agreement tended to be lower in these cases. Conclusion Overall interobserver agreement for anal cancer GTV delineation on MRI is good for both radiologists and radiation oncologists, regardless of experience level. Use of DWI did not improve agreement. DWI artefacts affecting GTV delineation occurred in almost half of the patients, which may severely limit the use of DWI for radiotherapy planning if no steps are undertaken to avoid them

The accuracy of Multi-detector row CT for the assessment of tumor invasion of the mesorectal fascia in primary rectal cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of Multi-detector row CT (MDCT) for the prediction of tumor invasion of the mesorectal fascia (MRF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 35 patients with primary rectal cancer underwent preoperative staging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MDCT. The tumor relationship to the MRF, expressed in 3 categories (1--tumor free MRF = tumor distance > or = 1 mm; 2--threatened = distance < 1 mm; 3--invasion = distance 0 mm) was determined on CT by two observers at patient level and at different anatomical locations. A third expert reader evaluated the MRF tumor relationship on MRI, which served as reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-curves) and areas under these curves (AUC) were calculated. The inter-observer agreement of CT was determined by using linear weighted kappa statistics. RESULTS: The AUC of CT for MRF invasion was 0.71 for observer 1 and 0.62 for observer 2. The inter-observer agreement was kappa = 0.34. The performance of CT at mid-high rectal levels was statistically significant better compared to low anterior (obs.1: AUC = 0.88 vs. 0.50; obs 2: AUC = 0.84 vs. 0.31; P < or = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Multi-detector row CT has a poor accuracy for predicting MRF invasion in low-anterior located tumors.The accuracy of CT significantly improves for tumors in the mid-high rectum. There is a high inconsistency among readers

Value of MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI for the diagnosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of standard MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) and fusion images for the diagnosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer in patients with a clinical suspicion of recurrence. METHODS: Forty-two patients with a clinical suspicion of recurrence underwent 1.5-T MRI consisting of standard T2-weighted FSE (3 planes) and an axial DWI (b0,500,1000). Two readers (R1,R2) independently scored the likelihood of recurrence; [1] on standard MRI, [2] on standard MRI+DWI, and [3] on T2-weighted+DWI fusion images. RESULTS: 19/42 patients had a local recurrence. R1 achieved an area under the ROC-curve (AUC) of 0.99, sensitivity 100% and specificity 83% on standard MRI versus 0.98, 100% and 91% after addition of DWI (p = 0.78). For R2 these figures were 0.87, 84% and 74% on standard MRI and 0.91, 89% and 83% with DWI (p = 0.09). Fusion images did not significantly improve the performance. Interobserver agreement was kappa0.69 for standard MRI, kappa0.82 for standard MRI+DWI and kappa0.84 for the fusion images. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is accurate for the diagnosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer in patients with a clinical suspicion of recurrence. Addition of DWI does not significantly improve its performance. However, with DWI specificity and interobserver agreement increase. Fusion images do not improve accuracy

Follow-up after radiological intervention in oncology: ECIO-ESOI evidence and consensus-based recommendations for clinical practice

Interventional radiology plays an important and increasing role in cancer treatment. Follow-up is important to be able to assess treatment success and detect locoregional and distant recurrence and recommendations for follow-up are needed. At ECIO 2018, a joint ECIO-ESOI session was organized to establish follow-up recommendations for oncologic intervention in liver, renal, and lung cancer. Treatments included thermal ablation, TACE, and TARE. In total five topics were evaluated: ablation in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), TARE in CRLM, TACE and TARE in HCC, ablation in renal cancer, and ablation in lung cancer. Evaluated modalities were FDG-PET-CT, CT, MRI, and (contrast-enhanced) ultrasound. Prior to the session, five experts were selected and performed a systematic review and presented statements, which were voted on in a telephone conference prior to the meeting by all panelists. These statements were presented and discussed at the ECIO-ESOI session at ECIO 2018. This paper presents the recommendations that followed from these initiatives. Based on expert opinions and the available evidence, follow-up schedules were proposed for liver cancer, renal cancer, and lung cancer. FDG-PET-CT, CT, and MRI are the recommended modalities, but one should beware of false-positive signs of residual tumor or recurrence due to inflammation early after the intervention. There is a need for prospective preferably multicenter studies to validate new techniques and new response criteria. This paper presents recommendations that can be used in clinical practice to perform the follow-up of patients with liver, lung, and renal cancer who were treated with interventional locoregional therapies

Value of ADC measurements for nodal staging after chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer—a per lesion validation study

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in addition to T2-weighted (T2W) MRI for nodal restaging after chemoradiation in rectal cancer. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent chemoradiation followed by MRI (1.5 T) and surgery. Imaging consisted of T2W-MRI and DWI (b0, 500, 1000). On T2W-MRI, nodes were scored as benign/malignant by two independent readers (R1, R2). Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was measured for each node. Diagnostic performance was compared for T2W-MRI, ADC and T2W+ADC, using a per lesion histological validation. RESULTS: ADC was higher for the malignant nodes (1.43 +/- 0.38 vs 1.19 +/- 0.27 *10(-3) mm(2)/s, p < 0.001). Area under the ROC curve/sensitivity/specificity were 0.88/65%/93% (R1) and 0.95/71%/91% (R2) using T2W-MRI; 0.66/53%/82% using ADC (mean of two readers); and 0.91/56%/98% (R1) and 0.96/56%/99% (R2) using T2W+ADC. There was no significant difference between T2W-MRI and T2W+ADC. Interobserver reproducibility was good for T2W-MRI (kappa0.73) and ADC (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: After chemoradiation, ADC measurements may have potential for nodal characterisation, but DWI on its own is not reliable. Addition of DWI to T2W-MRI does not improve accuracy and T2W-MRI is already sufficiently accurate

Correction to. Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting

Objectives: To update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. Methods Fourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Results: Consensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template. Conclusions: These updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI