MRI assessment of rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy: a multireader study
Creators
- Yuval, Jonathan B.1, 2
- Patil, Sujata3
- Gangai, Natalie4
- Gollub, Marc J.4
- Omer, Dana M.2
- Garcia-Aguilar, Julio2
- Akselrod, Dmitriy G.5
- Fung, Alice6
- Harmath, Carla B.7
- Kampalath, Rony8
- Lee, Sonia8
- Krehbiel, Kyle9
- Liu, Peter S.10
- Purysko, Andrei S.10
- Veniero, Joseph C.10
- Millet, John D.11
- Wasnik, Ashish P.11
- O'Malley, Ryan B.12
- 1. Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv (Israel)
- 2. Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY (United States)
- 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland (United States)
- 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY (United States)
- 5. Department of Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington (United States)
- 6. Department of Radiology, Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland (United States)
- 7. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago (United States)
- 8. Department of Radiology, University of California Irvine, Irvine (United States)
- 9. Department of Radiology, Creighton University Medical Center – Bergan Mercy, Omaha (United States)
- 10. Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland (United States)
- 11. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (United States)
- 12. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle (United States)
Description
A watch and wait strategy with the goal of organ preservation is an emerging treatment paradigm for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant treatment. However, the selection of appropriate patients remains a challenge. Most previous efforts to measure the accuracy of MRI in assessing rectal cancer response used a small number of radiologists and did not report variability among them. Twelve radiologists from 8 institutions assessed baseline and restaging MRI scans of 39 patients. The participating radiologists were asked to assess MRI features and to categorize the overall response as complete or incomplete. The reference standard was pathological complete response or a sustained clinical response for > 2 years. We measured the accuracy and described the interobserver variability of interpretation of rectal cancer response between radiologists at different medical centers. Overall accuracy was 64%, with a sensitivity of 65% for detecting complete response and specificity of 63% for detecting residual tumor. Interpretation of the overall response was more accurate than the interpretation of any individual feature. Variability of interpretation was dependent on the patient and imaging feature investigated. In general, variability and accuracy were inversely correlated. MRI-based evaluation of response at restaging is insufficiently accurate and has substantial variability of interpretation. Although some patients' response to neoadjuvant treatment on MRI may be easily recognizable, as seen by high accuracy and low variability, that is not the case for most patients. The overall accuracy of MRI-based response assessment is low and radiologists differed in their interpretation of key imaging features. Some patients' scans were interpreted with high accuracy and low variability, suggesting that these patients' pattern of response is easier to interpret. The most accurate assessments were those of the overall response, which took into consideration both T2W and DWI sequences and the assessment of both the primary tumor and the lymph nodes.
Availability note (English)
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09480-9Additional details
Identifiers
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- European Radiology (Internet)
- Journal Volume
- 33
- Journal Issue
- 8
- Journal Page Range
- p. 5761-5768
- ISSN
- 1432-1084
- CODEN
- EURAE3
INIS
- Country of Publication
- Germany
- Country of Input or Organization
- Germany
- INIS RN
- 54089689
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- ACCURACY; CARCINOMAS; CHEMOTHERAPY; DATA COMPILATION; IMAGE PROCESSING; LYMPH NODES; NMR IMAGING; PATHOLOGICAL CHANGES; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; RELAXATION TIME; SENSITIVITY; SPECIFICITY; WEIGHTING FUNCTIONS
- Descriptors DEC
- BODY; DATA; DATA PROCESSING; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DISEASES; FUNCTIONS; GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT; INFORMATION; INTESTINES; LARGE INTESTINE; LYMPHATIC SYSTEM; MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; PROCESSING; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY