Improving staging of rectal cancer in the pelvis: the role of PET/MRI

Purpose The role of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) in evaluating the local extent of rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the possible role of PET/MR versus magnetic resonance (MR) in clinically staging rectal cancer. Methods This retrospective t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2021-04, Vol.48 (4), p.1235-1245
Hauptverfasser: Catalano, Onofrio A., Lee, Susanna I., Parente, Chiara, Cauley, Christy, Furtado, Felipe S., Striar, Robin, Soricelli, Andrea, Salvatore, Marco, Li, Yan, Umutlu, Lale, Cañamaque, Lina Garcia, Groshar, David, Mahmood, Umar, Blaszkowsky, Lawrence S., Ryan, David P., Clark, Jeffrey W., Wo, Jennifer, Hong, Theodore S., Kunitake, Hiroko, Bordeianou, Liliana, Berger, David, Ricciardi, Rocco, Rosen, Bruce
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose The role of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) in evaluating the local extent of rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the possible role of PET/MR versus magnetic resonance (MR) in clinically staging rectal cancer. Methods This retrospective two-center cohort study of 62 patients with untreated rectal cancer investigated the possible role of baseline staging PET/MR versus stand-alone MR in determination of clinical stage. Two readers reviewed T and N stage, mesorectal fascia involvement, tumor length, distance from the anal verge, sphincter involvement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI). Sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal examination, and follow-up imaging, along with surgery when available, served as the reference standard. Results PET/MR outperformed MR in evaluating tumor size (42.5 ± 21.03 mm per the reference standard, 54 ± 20.45 mm by stand-alone MR, and 44 ± 20 mm by PET/MR, P  = 0.004), and in identifying N status (correct by MR in 36/62 patients [58%] and by PET/MR in 49/62 cases [79%]; P  = 0.02) and external sphincter infiltration (correct by MR in 6/10 and by PET/MR in 9/10; P  = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to any other features. Conclusion PET/MR provides a more precise assessment of the local extent of rectal cancers in evaluating cancer length, N status, and external sphincter involvement. PET/MR offers the opportunity to improve clinical decision-making, especially when evaluating low rectal tumors with possible external sphincter involvement.
ISSN:1619-7070
1619-7089
DOI:10.1007/s00259-020-05036-x