Prognostic Implications of Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer:A Population-Based Cross-sectional Study with Standardized Radiological Evaluation after Dedicated Training

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion regarding the prognostic implications of the presence, short-axis diameter, and location of lateral lymph nodes. OBJECTIVE: To analyze lateral lymph node characteristics, the role of downsizing on restaging MRI, and associated local recurrence rates for patients with cT3-4 rectal cancer after MRI re-review and training. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: This collaborative project was led by local investigators from surgery and radiology departments in 60 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 3057 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery in 2016: 1109 had a cT3-4 tumor located ≤8 cm from the anorectal junction, of whom 891 received neoadjuvant therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local recurrence and (ipsi) lateral local recurrence rates. RESULTS: Re-review identified 314 patients (35%) with visible lateral lymph nodes. Of these, 30 patients had either only long-stretched obturator (n = 13) or external iliac (n = 17) nodes, and both did not lead to any lateral local recurrences. The presence of internal iliac/obturator lateral lymph nodes (n = 284) resulted in 4-year local recurrence and lateral local recurrence rates of 16.4% and 8.8%, respectively. Enlarged (≥7 mm) lateral lymph nodes (n = 122) resulted in higher 4-year local recurrence (20.8%, 13.1%, 0%; p &lt;.001) and lateral local recurrence (14.7%, 4.4%, 0%; p &lt; 0.001) rates compared to smaller and no lateral lymph nodes, respectively. Visible lateral lymph nodes (HR 1.8 [1.1-2.8]) and enlarged lateral lymph nodes (HR 1.9 [1.1-3.5]) were independently associated with local recurrence in multivariable analysis. Enlarged lateral lymph nodes with malignant features had higher 4-year lateral local recurrence rates of 17.0%. Downsizing had no impact on lateral local recurrence rates. Enlarged lateral lymph nodes were found to be associated with higher univariate 4-year distant metastasis rates (36.4% vs 24.4%; p = 0.021), but this was not significant in multivariable analyses (HR 1.3 [0.9-1.]) and did not worsen overall survival. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective design and total number of patients with lateral lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of lateral local recurrence due to (enlarged) lateral lymph nodes was confirmed, but without the prognostic impact of downsizing after neoadjuvant therapy. These results point toward the incorporation of primary lateral lymph node size into treatment planning. See Video Abstract.</p

Evaluation of National Surgical Practice for Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer in an Untrained Setting

Background: Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. Methods: Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either ‘node-picking’ (the removal of an individual LLN) or ‘partial regional node dissection’ (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those undergoing only rectal resection. Results: Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7–3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2–2.5, p = 0.874). Conclusion: Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.</p

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection : worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Funding Information: The TENTACLE-Rectum study was funded by Medtronic External Research Program. The authors declare no other conflict of interest.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Retrospective evaluation of national MRI reporting quality for lateral lymph nodes in rectal cancer patients and concordance with prospective re-evaluation following additional training

OBJECTIVES: The presence and size of lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) are important factors influencing treatment decisions for rectal cancer. Awareness of the clinical relevance and describing LLNs in MRI reports is therefore essential. This study assessed whether LLNs were mentioned in primary MRI reports at a national level and investigated the concordance with standardised re-review. METHODS: This national, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study included 1096 patients from 60 hospitals treated in 2016 for primary cT3-4 rectal cancer ≤ 8 cm from the anorectal junction. Abdominal radiologists re-reviewed all MR images following a 2-h training regarding LLNs. RESULTS: Re-review of MR images identified that 41.0% of enlarged (≥ 7 mm) LLNs were not mentioned in primary MRI reports. A contradictory anatomical location was stated for 73.2% of all LLNs and a different size (≥/< 7 mm) for 41.7%. In total, 49.4% of all cases did not mention LLNs in primary MRI reports. Reporting LLNs was associated with stage (cT3N0 44.3%, T3N+/T4 52.8%, p = 0.013), cN stage (N0 44.1%, N1 48.6%, N2 59.5%, p < 0.001), hospital type (non-teaching 34.6%, teaching 52.2%, academic 53.2% p = 0.006) and annual rectal cancer resection volumes (low 34.8%, medium 47.7%, high 57.3% p < 0.001). For LLNs present according to original MRI reports (n = 226), 64.2% also mentioned a short-axis size, 52.7% an anatomical location and 25.2% whether it was deemed suspicious. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the primary MRI reports for rectal cancer patients treated in the Netherlands in 2016 did not mention LLNs. A significant portion of enlarged LLNs identified during re-review were also not mentioned originally, with considerable discrepancies for location and size. These results imply insufficient awareness and indicate the need for templates, education and training

Retrospective evaluation of national MRI reporting quality for lateral lymph nodes in rectal cancer patients and concordance with prospective re-evaluation following additional training

OBJECTIVES: The presence and size of lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) are important factors influencing treatment decisions for rectal cancer. Awareness of the clinical relevance and describing LLNs in MRI reports is therefore essential. This study assessed whether LLNs were mentioned in primary MRI reports at a national level and investigated the concordance with standardised re-review. METHODS: This national, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study included 1096 patients from 60 hospitals treated in 2016 for primary cT3-4 rectal cancer ≤ 8 cm from the anorectal junction. Abdominal radiologists re-reviewed all MR images following a 2-h training regarding LLNs. RESULTS: Re-review of MR images identified that 41.0% of enlarged (≥ 7 mm) LLNs were not mentioned in primary MRI reports. A contradictory anatomical location was stated for 73.2% of all LLNs and a different size (≥/< 7 mm) for 41.7%. In total, 49.4% of all cases did not mention LLNs in primary MRI reports. Reporting LLNs was associated with stage (cT3N0 44.3%, T3N+/T4 52.8%, p = 0.013), cN stage (N0 44.1%, N1 48.6%, N2 59.5%, p < 0.001), hospital type (non-teaching 34.6%, teaching 52.2%, academic 53.2% p = 0.006) and annual rectal cancer resection volumes (low 34.8%, medium 47.7%, high 57.3% p < 0.001). For LLNs present according to original MRI reports (n = 226), 64.2% also mentioned a short-axis size, 52.7% an anatomical location and 25.2% whether it was deemed suspicious. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the primary MRI reports for rectal cancer patients treated in the Netherlands in 2016 did not mention LLNs. A significant portion of enlarged LLNs identified during re-review were also not mentioned originally, with considerable discrepancies for location and size. These results imply insufficient awareness and indicate the need for templates, education and training

Evaluation of the implementation of the sigmoid take-off landmark in the Netherlands

AIM: The sigmoid take-off(STO), the point on imaging where the sigmoid sweeps ventral from the sacrum, was chosen as the definition of the rectum during an international Delphi consensus meeting and has been incorporated into the Dutch guideline since October 2019. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of this landmark one year after the guideline implementation and to perform a quality assessment of the STOtraining. METHODS: Dutch radiologists, surgeons, surgical residents, interns, PhD-students and physicianassistants were asked to complete a survey and classify 20 tumours on MRI as "below", "on" or "above" the STO. Outcomes were agreement with the expert reference, inter-rater variability and accuracy before and after the training. RESULTS: Eighty-six collaborators participated. Six radiologists (32%) and 11 surgeons (73%) used the STO as the standard landmark to distinguish between rectal and sigmoidal tumours during multi-disciplinary meetings. Overall agreement with the expert referenceimproved from53%to 70%(p<0.001) after the training.The positive predictive value for diagnosing rectal tumours was high before and after the training(92% vs. 90%); the negative predictive value for diagnosing sigmoidal tumours improved from 39% to 63%. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of the represented hospitals have implemented the new definition of rectal cancer one year after the Dutch national guideline implementation. Overall baseline agreement with the expert reference and accuracy for the tumours around the STO was low, yet improved significantly after training. These results highlight the added value of training in implementation of radiological landmarks to ensure unambiguous assessment

Prognostic Implications of Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer:A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study with Standardized Radiological Evaluation after Dedicated Training

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion regarding the prognostic implications of the presence, short-axis diameter and location of lateral lymph nodes. OBJECTIVE: To analyze lateral lymph node characteristics, the role of downsizing on restaging MRI and associated local recurrence rates for patients with cT3-4 rectal cancer after MRI re-review and training. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: This collaborative project was led by local investigators from surgery and radiology departments in 60 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 3057 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery in 2016: 1109 had cT3-4 tumor located =8?cm from the anorectal junction of which 890 received neoadjuvant therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local recurrence and ipsilateral local recurrence rates. RESULTS: Re-review identified 314 patients (35%) with visible lateral lymph nodes. 30 of these patients had either only long-stretched obturator (n = 13) or external iliac (n = 17) nodes and both did not lead to any lateral local recurrences. The presence of internal iliac/obturator lateral lymph nodes (n = 284) resulted in 4-year local recurrence and lateral local recurrence rates of 16.4% and 8.8%, respectively. Enlarged (=7?mm) lateral lymph nodes (n = 122) resulted in higher 4-year local recurrence (20.8%, 13.1%, 0%, p &lt; .001) and lateral local recurrence (14.7%, 4.4%, 0%, p &lt; 0.001) rates compared to smaller and no lateral lymph nodes, respectively. Visible lateral lymph nodes (hazard ratio 1.8 [1.1-2.8]) and enlarged lateral lymph nodes (hazard ratio 1.9 [1.1-3.5]) were independently associated with local recurrence in multivariable analysis. Enlarged lateral lymph nodes with malignant features had higher 4-year LLR rates of 17.0%. Downsizing had no impact on lateral local recurrence rates. Enlarged lateral lymph nodes were associated with higher univariate 4-year distant metastasis rates (36.4% 24.4%, p = 0.021), but not in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 1.3 [0.9-1.]), and did not worsen overall survival. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective design and total number of patients with lateral lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of lateral local recurrence due to (enlarged) lateral lymph nodes was confirmed, but without prognostic impact of downsizing after neoadjuvant therapy. These results point towards the incorporation of primary lateral lymph node size into treatment planning

Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer: Do we all Think the Same? A Review of Multidisciplinary Obstacles and Treatment Recommendations

Lateral lymph nodes in low, locally advanced, rectal cancer have proven implications for local recurrence rates, which increase drastically in the presence of persistently enlarged lateral lymph nodes. These clinical implications warrant a thorough understanding of lateral nodal disease with awareness and knowledge from all three specialties involved – radiology, radiation oncology, and surgery – to ensure proper treatment. Relevant literature for each specialty, including all current guidelines and perspectives, were examined. Variations in definitions and treatment paradigms were evaluated. There is still no consensus for the standardized treatment of lateral nodal disease. Each discipline works according to their own available evidence, but relevant data are scarce. Current international guidelines and standard recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of lateral lymph nodes are lacking. This results in differing perspectives and interpretations between the disciplines which can lead to challenging communication in an area where multidisciplinary collaboration is essential. This review addresses this by presenting the current evidence, perspectives and practices of each specialty and makes suggestions for each phase of the diagnostic and treatment process for patients with lateral nodal disease. By doing this, steps are taken toward achieving international consensus, and multidisciplinary collaboration

Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer: Do we all Think the Same? A Review of Multidisciplinary Obstacles and Treatment Recommendations

Lateral lymph nodes in low, locally advanced, rectal cancer have proven implications for local recurrence rates, which increase drastically in the presence of persistently enlarged lateral lymph nodes. These clinical implications warrant a thorough understanding of lateral nodal disease with awareness and knowledge from all three specialties involved – radiology, radiation oncology, and surgery – to ensure proper treatment. Relevant literature for each specialty, including all current guidelines and perspectives, were examined. Variations in definitions and treatment paradigms were evaluated. There is still no consensus for the standardized treatment of lateral nodal disease. Each discipline works according to their own available evidence, but relevant data are scarce. Current international guidelines and standard recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of lateral lymph nodes are lacking. This results in differing perspectives and interpretations between the disciplines which can lead to challenging communication in an area where multidisciplinary collaboration is essential. This review addresses this by presenting the current evidence, perspectives and practices of each specialty and makes suggestions for each phase of the diagnostic and treatment process for patients with lateral nodal disease. By doing this, steps are taken toward achieving international consensus, and multidisciplinary collaboration

Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer:Do we all Think the Same? A Review of Multidisciplinary Obstacles and Treatment Recommendations

Lateral lymph nodes in low, locally advanced, rectal cancer have proven implications for local recurrence rates, which increase drastically in the presence of persistently enlarged lateral lymph nodes. These clinical implications warrant a thorough understanding of lateral nodal disease with awareness and knowledge from all three specialties involved – radiology, radiation oncology, and surgery – to ensure proper treatment. Relevant literature for each specialty, including all current guidelines and perspectives, were examined. Variations in definitions and treatment paradigms were evaluated. There is still no consensus for the standardized treatment of lateral nodal disease. Each discipline works according to their own available evidence, but relevant data are scarce. Current international guidelines and standard recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of lateral lymph nodes are lacking. This results in differing perspectives and interpretations between the disciplines which can lead to challenging communication in an area where multidisciplinary collaboration is essential. This review addresses this by presenting the current evidence, perspectives and practices of each specialty and makes suggestions for each phase of the diagnostic and treatment process for patients with lateral nodal disease. By doing this, steps are taken toward achieving international consensus, and multidisciplinary collaboration