Response assessment after (chemo)radiotherapy for rectal cancer: Why are we missing complete responses with MRI and endoscopy?

Purpose To evaluate what features on restaging MRI and endoscopy led to a false clinical diagnosis of residual tumour in patients with a pathological complete response after rectal cancer surgery. Methods Patients with an unrecognized complete response after (chemo)radiotherapy were selected in a tertiary referral centre for rectal cancer treatment. An unrecognized complete response was defined as a clinical incomplete response at MRI and/or endoscopy with a pathological complete response of the primary tumour after surgery. The morphology of the tumour bed and the lymph nodes were evaluated on post-CRT T2-weighted MRI (T2-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI). Post-CRT endoscopy images were evaluated for residual mucosal abnormalities. MRI and endoscopy features were correlated with histopathology. Results Thirty-six patients with an unrecognized complete response were included. Mucosal abnormalities were present at restaging endoscopy in 84%, mixed signal intensity on T2-MRI in 53%, an irregular aspect of the former tumour location on T2-MRI in 69%, diffusion restriction on DWI in 51% and suspicious lymph nodes in 25%. Conclusions Overstaging of residual tumour after (chemo)radiotherapy in rectal cancer is mainly due to residual mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy, mixed signal intensity or irregular fibrosis at T2-MRI, diffusion restriction at DWI and residual suspicious lymph nodes. Presence of these features is not definitely associated with residual tumour and in selected cases an extended waiting interval can be considered

Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus

Objectives: To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them. Methods: A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists. Results: Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. Conclusions: The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting. Key Points: • Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. • These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting

Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Selection of Complete Responders After Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study

PURPOSE: In 10-24% of patients with rectal cancer who are treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, no residual tumor is found after surgery (ypT0). When accurately selected, these complete responders might be considered for less invasive treatments instead of standard surgery. So far, no imaging method has proven reliable. This study was designed to assess the accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in addition to standard rectal MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from three university hospitals underwent chemoradiation followed by a restaging MRI (1.5T), consisting of standard T2W-MRI and DWI (b0-1000). Three independent readers first scored the standard MRI only for the likelihood of a complete response using a 5-point confidence score, after which the DWI images were added and the scoring was repeated. Histology (ypT0 vs. ypT1-4) was the standard reference. Diagnostic performance for selection of complete responders and interobserver agreement were compared for the two readings. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 120 patients had a complete response (ypT0). Areas under the ROC-curve for the three readers improved from 0.76, 0.68, and 0.58, using only standard MRI, to 0.8, 0.8, and 0.78 after addition of DWI (P = 0.39, 0.02, and 0.002). Sensitivity for selection of complete responders ranged from 0-40% on standard MRI versus 52-64% after addition of DWI. Specificity was equally high (89-98%) for both reading sessions. Interobserver agreement improved from kappa 0.2-0.32 on standard MRI to 0.51-0.55 after addition of DWI. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DWI to standard rectal MRI improves the selection of complete responders after chemoradiation

Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): an international multicentre registry study

Background: The strategy of watch and wait (W&W) in patients with rectal cancer who achieve a complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy is new and offers an opportunity for patients to avoid major resection surgery. However, evidence is based on small-to-moderate sized series from specialist centres. The International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) aims to describe the outcome of the W&W strategy in a large-scale registry of pooled individual patient data. We report the results of a descriptive analysis after inclusion of more than 1000 patients in the registry. Methods: Participating centres entered data in the registry through an online, highly secured, and encrypted research data server. Data included baseline characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy, imaging protocols, incidence of local regrowth and distant metastasis, and survival status. All patients with rectal cancer in whom the standard of care (total mesorectal excision surgery) was omitted after neoadjuvant therapy were eligible to be included in the IWWD. For the present analysis, we only selected patients with no signs of residual tumour at reassessment (a cCR). We analysed the proportion of patients with local regrowth, proportion of patients with distant metastases, 5-year overall survival, and 5-year disease-specific survival. Findings: Between April 14, 2015, and June 30, 2017, we identified 1009 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment and were managed by W&W in the database from 47 participating institutes (15 countries). We included 880 (87%) patients with a cCR. Median follow-up time was 3·3 years (95% CI 3·1–3·6). The 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 25·2% (95% CI 22·2–28·5%), 88% of all local regrowth was diagnosed in the first 2 years, and 97% of local regrowth was located in the bowel wall. Distant metastasis were diagnosed in 71 (8%) of 880 patients. 5-year overall survival was 85% (95% CI 80·9–87·7%), and 5-year disease-specific survival was 94% (91–96%). Interpretation: This dataset has the largest series of patients with rectal cancer treated with a W&W approach, consisting of approximately 50% data from previous cohort series and 50% unpublished data. Local regrowth occurs mostly in the first 2 years and in the bowel wall, emphasising the importance of endoscopic surveillance to ensure the option of deferred curative surgery. Local unsalvageable disease after W&W was rare. Funding: European Registration of Cancer Care financed by European Society of Surgical Oncology, Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, Bas Mulder Award granted by the Alpe d'Huzes Foundation and Dutch Cancer Society, and European Research Council Advanced Grant

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

Diffusion-weighted MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: In 10-24% of patients with rectal cancer who are treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, no residual tumor is found after surgery (ypT0). When accurately selected, these complete responders might be considered for less invasive treatments instead of standard surgery. So far, no imaging method has proven reliable. This study was designed to assess the accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in addition to standard rectal MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from three university hospitals underwent chemoradiation followed by a restaging MRI (1.5T), consisting of standard T2W-MRI and DWI (b0-1000). Three independent readers first scored the standard MRI only for the likelihood of a complete response using a 5-point confidence score, after which the DWI images were added and the scoring was repeated. Histology (ypT0 vs. ypT1-4) was the standard reference. Diagnostic performance for selection of complete responders and interobserver agreement were compared for the two readings. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 120 patients had a complete response (ypT0). Areas under the ROC-curve for the three readers improved from 0.76, 0.68, and 0.58, using only standard MRI, to 0.8, 0.8, and 0.78 after addition of DWI (P = 0.39, 0.02, and 0.002). Sensitivity for selection of complete responders ranged from 0-40% on standard MRI versus 52-64% after addition of DWI. Specificity was equally high (89-98%) for both reading sessions. Interobserver agreement improved from \u3ba 0.2-0.32 on standard MRI to 0.51-0.55 after addition of DWI. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DWI to standard rectal MRI improves the selection of complete responders after chemoradiation