Systematic review of prognostic importance of extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer

AIM: To systematically review the survival outcomes relating to extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library databases, Google scholar and Pubmed until October 2014. Search terms were used in combination to yield articles on extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer. Outcome measures included prevalence and 5-year survival rates. These were graphically displayed using Forest plots. Statistical analysis of the data was carried out. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported the prevalence of extramural venous invasion (EMVI) positive patients. Prevalence ranged from 9%-61%. The pooled prevalence of EMVI positivity was 26% [Random effects: Event rate 0.26 (0.18, 0.36)]. Most studies showed that EMVI related to worse oncological outcomes. The pooled overall survival was 39.5% [Random effects: Event rate 0.395 (0.29, 0.51)]. CONCLUSION: Historically, there has been huge variation in the prevalence of EMVI through inconsistent reporting. However the presence of EMVI clearly leads to worse survival outcomes. As detection rates become more consistent, EMVI may be considered as part of risk-stratification in rectal cancer. Standardised histopathological definitions and the use of magnetic resonance imaging to identify EMVI will improve detection rates in the future

Interaction of Cationic Surfactants with Polytungstate

346-34

Interaction of Cationic Surfactants with Polytungstate

346-34

Defining response to radiotherapy in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological scales

Aim: To define good and poor regression using pathology and MRI regression scales after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer. Methods: A systematic review of all studies up to December 2015, without language restriction that were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960–2015), and EMBASE (1991–2015). Searches were performed of article bibliographies and conference abstracts. MeSH and text words, included “tumour regression”, “mrTRG”, “poor response” and “colorectal cancers”. Clinical studies using either MRI or histopathological TRG scales to define good and poor responders were included in relation to outcomes (local (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease free (DFS), overall survival (OS)). There was no age restriction to included patients nor stage of cancer.Data was extracted by two authors independently using pre-defined outcome measures. Results: Quantitative data (prevalence) were extracted and analysed according to meta-analytical techniques using comprehensive meta-analysis. Qualitative data (LR, DR, DFS &OS) were presented as ranges. The overall proportion of poor responders after neo-adjuvant CRT was 37.7% (CI: 30.1 to 45.8). There were 19 different reported histopathological scales and one MRI regression scale (mrTRG). Clinical studies used nine and six histopathological scales for poor and good responders respectively. All studies using MRI to define good and poor response used one scale. The most common histopathological definition for good response was the Mandard grades 1&2 or Dworak grades 3&4; Mandard 3,4&5 and Dworak 0,1&2 were used for poor response. For histopathological grades, the 5-year outcomes for poor responders were LR 3.4-4.3%, DR 14.3-20.3%, DFS 61.7-68.1% and OS 60.7-69.1. Good pathological response 5-year outcomes were LR, 0-1.8%; DR, 0-11.6%; DFS, 78.4-86.7%; and, OS, 77.4-88.2%. A poor response on MRI (mrTRG 4,5) resulted in 5-year LR 4-29%, DR 9%, DFS 31-59% and OS 27-68%. The 5-year outcomes with a good response on MRI (mrTRG 1,2 & 3) was LR 1-14%, DR 3%, DFS 64-83% and OS 72-90%. Conclusions: For histopathology regression assessment Mandard1,2/Dworak3,4 should be used for good and Mandard3,4,5/Dworak0,1,2 for poor response. MRI indicates good and poor response by mrTRG1-3 and mrTRG4-5 respectively

Interobserver agreement of radiologists assessing the response of rectal cancers to preoperative chemoradiation using the MRI tumour regression grading (mrTRG)

AIM: To investigate whether the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tumour regression grading (mrTRG) scale can be taught effectively resulting in a clinically reasonable interobserver agreement (>0.4; moderate to near perfect agreement). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study examines the interobserver agreement of mrTRG, between 35 radiologists and a central reviewer. Two workshops were organised for radiologists to assess regression of rectal cancers on MRI staging scans. A range of mrTRGs on 12 patient scans were used for assessment. RESULTS: Kappa agreement ranged from 0.14–0.82 with a median value of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.37–0.77) indicating good overall agreement. Eight (26%) radiologists had very good/near perfect agreement (κ>0.8). Six (19%) radiologists had good agreement (0.8≥κ>0.6) and a further 12 (39%) had moderate agreement (0.6≥κ>0.4). Five (16%) radiologists had a fair agreement (0.4≥κ>0.2) and two had poor agreement (0.2>κ). There was a tendency towards good agreement (skewness: 0.92). In 65.9% and 90% of cases the radiologists were able to correctly highlight good and poor responders, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of the response of rectal cancers to chemoradiation therapy may be performed effectively using mrTRG. Radiologists can be taught the mrTRG scale. Even with minimal training, good agreement with the central reviewer along with effective differentiation between good and intermediate/poor responders can be achieved. Focus should be on facilitating the identification of good responders. It is predicted that with more intensive interactive case-based learning a κ>0.8 is likely to be achieved. Testing and retesting is recommended

An audit comparing the reporting of staging MRI scans for rectal cancer with the London Cancer Alliance (LCA) guidelines.

This article focuses on the audit and assessment of clinical practice before and after introduction of MRI reporting guidelines. Standardised proforma based reporting may improve quality of MRI reports. Uptake of the use may be facilitated by endorsement from regional and national cancer organisations.This audit was divided into 2 phases. MRI reports issued between April 2014 and June 2014 were included in the first part of our audit. Phase II included MRI reports issued between April 2015 and June 2015.14 out of 15 hospitals that report MRI scans in the LCA responded to our audit proposal. The completion rate of key MRI metrics/metrics was better in proforma compared to prose reports both before (98% vs 73%; p < 0.05) and after introduction of the guidelines (98% vs 71%; p < 0.05). There was an approximate doubling of proforma reporting after the introduction of guidelines and workshop interventions (39% vs 65%; p < 0.05). Evaluation of locally advanced cancers (tumours extending to or beyond the circumferential resection margin) for beyond TME surgery was reported in 3% of prose reports vs. 42% in proformas.Incorporation of standardised reporting in official guidelines improved the uptake of proforma based reporting. Proforma based reporting captured more MRI reportable items compared to prose summaries, before and after the implementation of guidelines. MRI reporting of advanced cancers for beyond TME surgery falls short of acceptable standards but is more detailed in proforma based reports. Further work to improve completion especially in beyond TME reporting is required