Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 4445–4454 | Cite as

Diffusion-weighted MRI to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: main interpretation pitfalls and their use for teaching

  • Doenja M. J. LambregtsEmail author
  • Miriam M. van Heeswijk
  • Andrea Delli Pizzi
  • Saskia G. C. van Elderen
  • Luisa Andrade
  • Nicky H. G. M. Peters
  • Peter A. M. Kint
  • Margreet Osinga-de Jong
  • Shandra Bipat
  • Rik Ooms
  • Max J. Lahaye
  • Monique Maas
  • Geerard L. Beets
  • Frans C. H. Bakers
  • Regina G. H. Beets-Tan
Gastrointestinal

Abstract

Objectives

To establish the most common image interpretation pitfalls for non-expert readers using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer and to explore the use of these pitfalls in an expert teaching setting.

Methods

Two independent non-expert readers (R1 and R2) scored the restaging DW MRI scans (b1,000 DWI, in conjunction with ADC maps and T2-W MRI scans for anatomical reference) in 100 patients for the likelihood of a complete response versus residual tumour using a five-point confidence score. The readers received expert feedback and the final response outcome for each case. The supervising expert documented any potential interpretation errors/pitfalls discussed for each case to identify the most common pitfalls.

Results

The most common pitfalls were the interpretation of low signal on the ADC map, small susceptibility artefacts, T2 shine-through effects, suboptimal sequence angulation and collapsed rectal wall. Diagnostic performance (area under the ROC curve) was 0.78 (R1) and 0.77 (R2) in the first 50 patients and 0.85 (R1) and 0.85 (R2) in the final 50 patients.

Conclusions

Five main image interpretation pitfalls were identified and used for teaching and feedback. Both readers achieved a good diagnostic performance with an AUC of 0.85.

Key Points

Fibrosis appears hypointense on an ADC map and should not be mistaken for tumour.

Susceptibility artefacts on rectal DWI are an important potential pitfall.

T2 shine-through on rectal DWI is an important potential pitfall.

These pitfalls are useful to teach non-experts how to interpret rectal DWI.

Keywords

Rectal neoplasms Chemoradiotherapy Magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Diagnosis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Doenja Lambregts.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Funding

The authors state that this work did not receive any funding.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Overlap of study subjects or cohorts

Some of the study patients were included in previously reported studies, as follows:

Clinical studies

  • The following study included the 38 patients with a clinical complete response after CRT with follow-up according to a watchful waiting strategy:
    • Martens MH, et al. Long-term outcome of an organ preservation program after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(12).

    • This study reports the clinical outcomes in these patients and did not focus on imaging.

Studies on diffusion-weighted imaging

  • The following study included one of the patients in our study:
    • Curvo-Semedo L, et al. Rectal cancer: assessment of complete response to preoperative combined radiation therapy with chemotherapy – conventional MR volumetry versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;260(3):734–43.

    • This study focused on quantitative (ADC and volume) measurements and not on visual assessment of DWI.

  • The following study included 15 of the patients in our study:
    • Lambregts DM, et al. MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI volumetry for identification of complete tunour responders after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: a bi-institutional validation study. Ann Surg. 2015;262(6):1034–9.

    • This study focused on quantitative (volume) measurements on DWI. It did not include visual DWI assessment, pitfalls or teaching effects.

  • The following study included 12 of the patients in our study:
    • van Heeswijk MM, et al. Automated and semiautomated segmentation of rectal tunour volumes on diffusion-weighted MRI: can it replace manual volumetry? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94(4):824–31.

    • This study was a technical study on automated software methods to measure tumour volumes on DWI. It did not include a visual assessment or comparison of DWI findings with treatment response.

  • The following study included 21 of the patients in our study:
    • van Heeswijk MM, et al. DWI for assessment of rectal cancer nodes after chemoradiotherapy: is the absence of nodes on DWI proof of a negative nodal status? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):W79–W84.

    • This study focused on DWI for lymph node assessment and not for tumour response evaluation.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2017_4830_MOESM1_ESM.doc (38 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 38 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Habr-Gama A, Gama-Rodrigues J, Sao Juliao GP et al (2014) Local recurrence after complete clinical response and watch and wait in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: impact of salvage therapy on local disease control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88:822–828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maas M, Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM et al (2011) Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:4633–4640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lezoche E, Guerrieri M, Paganini AM et al (2005) Transanal endoscopic versus total mesorectal laparoscopic resections of T2-N0 low rectal cancers after neoadjuvant treatment: a prospective randomized trial with a 3-years minimum follow-up period. Surg Endosc 19:751–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Paardt MP, Zagers MB, Beets-Tan RG, Stoker J, Bipat S (2013) Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 269:101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lambregts DM, Vandecaveye V, Barbaro B et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2224–2231CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim SH, Lee JM, Hong SH et al (2009) Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy. Radiology 253:116–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song I, Kim SH, Lee SJ, Choi JY, Kim MJ, Rhim H (2012) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of viable tumour after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: comparison with T2-weighted and PET/CT imaging. Br J Radiol 85:577–586CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sathyakumar K, Chandramohan A, Masih D, Jesudasan MR, Pulimood A, Eapen A (2016) Best MRI predictors of complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer. Br J Radiol 89:20150328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sassen S, de Booij M, Sosef M et al (2013) Locally advanced rectal cancer: is diffusion weighted MRI helpful for the identification of complete responders (ypT0N0) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy? Eur Radiol 23:3440–3449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA et al (2009) When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation. Radiology 253:632–640CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boellaard TN, Nio CY, Bossuyt PM, Bipat S, Stoker J (2012) Can radiographers be trained to triage CT colonography for extracolonic findings? Eur Radiol 22:2780–2789CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saba L, Guerriero S, Sulis R et al (2011) Learning curve in the detection of ovarian and deep endometriosis by using magnetic resonance: comparison with surgical results. Eur J Radiol 79:237–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maas M, Lambregts DM, Nelemans PJ et al (2015) Assessment of clinical complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer with digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI: selection for organ-saving treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3873–3880CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lambregts DM, Lahaye MJ, Heijnen LA et al (2016) MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI to diagnose a local tumour regrowth during long-term follow-up of rectal cancer patients treated with organ-preservation after chemoradiotherapy. Eur Radiol 26:2118–2125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M et al (2011) Rectal cancer: assessment of complete response to preoperative combined radiation therapy with chemotherapy – conventional MR volumetry versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 260:734–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gatehouse PD, Bydder GM (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of short T2 components in tissue. Clin Radiol 58:1–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slater A, Halligan S, Taylor SA et al (2006) Distance between the rectal wall and mesorectal fascia measured by MRI: effect of rectal distension and implications for preoperative prediction of a tumor-free circumferential resection margin. Clin Radiol 61:65–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM, Maas M et al (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients: recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol 23:2522–2531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mikayama R, Yabuuchi H, Kobayashi K et al (2016) Comparison of image quality for diffusion-weighted imaging in the head and neck between turbo spin-echo and echo-planar imaging. Sci Poster Eur Congr Radiol. doi: 10.1594/ecr2016/C-1045 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maas M, Nelemans PJ, Valentini V et al (2010) Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 11:835–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martens M, Maas M, Heijnen LA et al (2016) Long term outcome of an organ preservation program after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 108(12). doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw171
  23. 23.
    Smith JD, Ruby JA, Goodman KA et al (2012) Nonoperative management of rectal cancer with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy. Ann Surg 256:965–972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doenja M. J. Lambregts
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miriam M. van Heeswijk
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Andrea Delli Pizzi
    • 5
  • Saskia G. C. van Elderen
    • 6
  • Luisa Andrade
    • 7
  • Nicky H. G. M. Peters
    • 8
  • Peter A. M. Kint
    • 9
  • Margreet Osinga-de Jong
    • 8
  • Shandra Bipat
    • 10
  • Rik Ooms
    • 11
  • Max J. Lahaye
    • 1
  • Monique Maas
    • 1
  • Geerard L. Beets
    • 12
    • 4
  • Frans C. H. Bakers
    • 2
  • Regina G. H. Beets-Tan
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe Netherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.GROW School for Oncology and Developmental BiologyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Neuroscience and ImagingGabriele d’Annunzio University, SS. Annunziate HospitalChietiItaly
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyLeiden University Medical CentreLeidenThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of RadiologyHospitais Da Universidade De CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  8. 8.Zuyderland Medical Center, location HeerlenHeerlenThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Department of RadiologyAmphia HospitalBredaThe Netherlands
  10. 10.Department of RadiologyAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  11. 11.Department of RadiologyMaxima Medical CentreEindhoven-VeldhovenThe Netherlands
  12. 12.Department of SurgeryThe Netherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations