Improved detection of a tumorous involvement of the mesorectal fascia and locoregional lymph nodes in locally advanced rectal cancer using DCE-MRI
The prediction of an infiltration of the mesorectal fascia (MRF) and malignant lymph nodes is essential for treatment planning and prognosis of patients with rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the additional diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for the detection of a malignant involvement of the MRF and of mesorectal lymph nodes in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.
In this prospective study, 22 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were examined with 1.5-T MRI between September 2012 and April 2015. Histopathological assessment of tumor size, tumor infiltration to the MRF, and malignant involvement of locoregional lymph nodes served as standard of reference. Sensitivity and specificity of detecting MRF infiltration and malignant nodes (nodal cut-off size [NCO] ≥ 5 and ≥ 10 mm, respectively) was determined by conventional MRI (cMRI; precontrast and postcontrast T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted images) and by additional semi-quantitative DCE-MRI maps (cMRI+DCE-MRI).
Compared to cMRI, additional semi-quantitative DCE-MRI maps significantly increased sensitivity (86 vs. 71% [NCO ≥ 5 mm]/29% [NCO ≥ 10 mm]) and specificity (90 vs. 70% [NCO ≥ 5 mm]) of detecting malignant lymph nodes (p < 0.05). Moreover, DCE-MRI significantly augmented specificity (91 vs. 82%) of discovering a MRF infiltration (p < 0.05), while there was no change in sensitivity (83%; p > 0.05).
DCE-MRI considerably increases both sensitivity and specificity for the detection of small mesorectal lymph node metastases (≥ 5 mm but < 10 mm) and sufficiently improves specificity of a suspected MRF infiltration in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.
KeywordsRectal cancer DCE-MRI Mesorectal fascia Lymph nodes Perfusion parameters
The authors are most grateful to Dr. Simone Reu for providing histopathologic images and thank Dres. Ursula and Günther Karpitschka for their profound support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 5.Patel UB, Taylor F, Blomqvist L, George C, Evans H, Tekkis P, Quirke P, Sebag-Montefiore D, Moran B, Heald R, Guthrie A, Bees N, Swift I, Pennert K, Brown G (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging-detected tumor response for locally advanced rectal cancer predicts survival outcomes: MERCURY experience. J Clin Oncol 29:3753–3760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Blomqvist L, Swift IR, Sebag-Montefiore D, Tekkis P, Brown G, Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Rectal Cancer European Equivalence Study Study Group (2014) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5-year follow-up results of the MERCURY study. J Clin Oncol 32:34–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Garcia-Aguilar J, Shi Q, Thomas CR, Chan E, Cataldo P, Marcet J, Medich D, Pigazzi A, Oommen S, Posner MC (2012) A phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and local excision for T2N0 rectal cancer: preliminary results of the ACOSOG Z6041 trial. Ann Surg Oncol 19:384–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Yu CS, Yun HR, Shin EJ, Lee KY, Kim NK, Lim SB, Oh ST, Kang SB, Choi WJ, Lee WY, Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Korean Society of Coloproctology (2013) Local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in advanced rectal cancer: a national multicenter analysis. Am J Surg 206:482–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Shin YS, Yu CS, Park JH, Kim JC, Lim SB, Park IJ, Kim TW, Hong YS, Kim KP, Yoon SM, Joo JH, Kim JH (2017) Total mesorectal excision versus local excision after favorable response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in “early” clinical T3 rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 99:136–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Alberda WJ, Dassen HPN, Dwarkasing RS, Willemssen FEJA, van der Pool AEM, de Wilt JHW, Burger JWA, Verhoef C (2013) Prediction of tumor stage and lymph node involvement with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI after chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Color Dis 28:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Ma X et al (2015) Characteristics and prognostic significance of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging-assessed circumferential margin in rectal cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract 410150:2015Google Scholar
- 33.van Gijn W, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EM, Putter H, Wiggers T, Rutten HJ, Påhlman L, Glimelius B, van de Velde C, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2011) Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer: 12-year follow-up of the multicentre, randomised controlled TME trial. Lancet Oncol 12:575–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar