Advertisement

What Are the Relevant Imaging Factors to Optimize Treatment Decisions?

  • Manish ChandEmail author
  • Gina Brown
Chapter

Abstract

Radiology has become an increasingly important part of today’s multi-disciplinary approach to managing cancer. Optimal treatment decisions are based on knowledge of tumour characteristics and, in particular, identifying prognostic features early in diagnosis. In rectal cancer, many of these prognostic features can be identified using a combination of MRI, EAUS and CT. Such factors include pathological involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM), height of the tumour from the anal verge, extramural venous invasion and T-staging of the tumour in addition to the presence of distant metastases. Treatment decisions must aim to deal with the immediate threat of cancer and also reduce the risk of future local or distant recurrence. By identifying these factors at an early stage in the patient’s treatment pathway using appropriate imaging techniques, selective neo-adjuvant therapy can be given to improve overall outcomes.

Keywords

Rectal Cancer Total Mesorectal Excision Bowel Wall Anal Verge Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Willett CG et al (1999) Prognostic factors in stage T3N0 rectal cancer: do all patients require postoperative pelvic irradiation and chemotherapy? Dis Colon Rectum 42(2):167–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cawthorn SJ et al (1990) Extent of mesorectal spread and involvement of lateral resection margin as prognostic factors after surgery for rectal cancer. Lancet 335(8697):1055–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wittekind C, International Union against Cancer (2003) TNM supplement: a commentary on uniform use, 3rd edn. Wiley-Liss, Hoboken, p xix, 168 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwok H, Bissett IP, Hill GL (2000) Preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 15(1):9–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merkel S et al (2001) The prognostic inhomogeneity in pT3 rectal carcinomas. Int J Colorectal Dis 16(5):298–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akasu T et al (2000) Endorectal ultrasonography and treatment of early stage rectal cancer. World J Surg 24(9):1061–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Puli SR et al (2009) How good is endoscopic ultrasound in differentiating various T stages of rectal cancer? Meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 16(2):254–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown G et al (2003) Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology 227(2):371–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Will O et al (2006) Diagnostic precision of nanoparticle-enhanced MRI for lymph-node metastases: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 7(1):52–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lahaye MJ et al (2005) Imaging for predicting the risk factors – the circumferential resection margin and nodal disease – of local recurrence in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 26(4):259–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bipat S et al (2004) Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging – a meta-analysis. Radiology 232(3):773–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Puli SR et al (2009) Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound to diagnose nodal invasion by rectal cancers: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 16(5):1255–1265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shihab OC et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging-detected lymph nodes close to the mesorectal fascia are rarely a cause of margin involvement after total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 97(9):1431–1436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valls C et al (2001) Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: preoperative detection and assessment of resectability with helical CT. Radiology 218(1):55–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jang HJ et al (2002) Small hypoattenuating lesions in the liver on single-phase helical CT in preoperative patients with gastric and colorectal cancer: prevalence, significance, and differentiating features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 26(5):718–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nino-Murcia M et al (2000) Focal liver lesions: pattern-based classification scheme for enhancement at arterial phase CT. Radiology 215(3):746–751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young SW et al (1990) Detection of hepatic malignancies using Mn-DPDP (manganese dipyridoxal diphosphate) hepatobiliary MRI contrast agent. Magn Reson Imaging 8(3):267–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jarnagin WR et al (1999) Liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: assessing the risk of occult irresectable disease. J Am Coll Surg 188(1):33–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strasberg SM et al (2001) Survival of patients evaluated by FDG-PET before hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a prospective database study. Ann Surg 233(3):293–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kong G et al (2008) The use of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in colorectal liver metastases-comparison with CT and liver MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:1323–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ong KO, Leen E (2007) Radiological staging of colorectal liver metastases. Surg Oncol 16(1):7–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colorectal Research Fellow and Registrar in Colorectal SurgeryRoyal Marsden HospitalSuttonUK
  2. 2.Consultant RadiologistRoyal Marsden HospitalSuttonUK

Personalised recommendations