Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2023
Sense and nonsense of yT-staging on MRI after chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
El Khababi Najim, Beets-Tan Regina G H, Tissier Renaud, Lahaye Max J, Maas Monique, Curvo-Semedo Luís, Dresen Raphaëla C, Nougaret Stephanie, Beets Geerard L, Lambregts Doenja M J, Rectal MRI Study Group
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of this work was to investigate the value of rectal cancer T-staging on MRI after chemoradiotherapy (ymrT-staging) in relation to the degree of fibrotic transformation of the tumour bed as assessed using the pathological tumour regression grade (pTRG) of Mandard as a standard of reference.
METHOD: Twenty two radiologists, including five rectal MRI experts and 17 'nonexperts' (general/abdominal radiologists), evaluated the ymrT stage on the restaging MRIs of 90 rectal cancer patients after chemoradiotherapy. The ymrT stage was compared with the final ypT stage at histopathology; the percentages of correct staging (ymrT = ypT), understaging (ymrT < ypT) and overstaging (ymrT > ypT) were calculated and compared between patients with predominant tumour at histopathology (pTRG4-5) and patients with predominant fibrosis (pTRG1-3). Interobserver agreement (IOA) was computed using Krippendorff's alpha.
RESULTS: Average ymrT/ypT stage concordance was 48% for the experts and 43% for the nonexperts; ymrT/ypT stage concordance was significantly higher in the pTRG4-5 subgroup (58% vs. 41% for the pTRG1-3 group; p = 0.01), with the best results for the MRI experts. Overstaging was the main source of error, especially in the pTRG1-3 subgroup (average overstaging rate 38%-44% vs. 13%-55% in the pTRG4-5 subgroup). IOA was higher for the expert versus nonexpert readers (α = 0.67 vs. α = 0.39).
CONCLUSIONS: ymrT-staging is moderately accurate; accuracy is higher in poorly responding patients with predominant tumour but low in good responders with predominant fibrosis, resulting in significant overstaging. Radiologists should shift their focus from ymrT-staging to detecting gross residual (and progressive) disease, and identifying potential candidates for organ preservation who would benefit from further clinical and endoscopic evaluation to guide final treatment planning.
METHOD: Twenty two radiologists, including five rectal MRI experts and 17 'nonexperts' (general/abdominal radiologists), evaluated the ymrT stage on the restaging MRIs of 90 rectal cancer patients after chemoradiotherapy. The ymrT stage was compared with the final ypT stage at histopathology; the percentages of correct staging (ymrT = ypT), understaging (ymrT < ypT) and overstaging (ymrT > ypT) were calculated and compared between patients with predominant tumour at histopathology (pTRG4-5) and patients with predominant fibrosis (pTRG1-3). Interobserver agreement (IOA) was computed using Krippendorff's alpha.
RESULTS: Average ymrT/ypT stage concordance was 48% for the experts and 43% for the nonexperts; ymrT/ypT stage concordance was significantly higher in the pTRG4-5 subgroup (58% vs. 41% for the pTRG1-3 group; p = 0.01), with the best results for the MRI experts. Overstaging was the main source of error, especially in the pTRG1-3 subgroup (average overstaging rate 38%-44% vs. 13%-55% in the pTRG4-5 subgroup). IOA was higher for the expert versus nonexpert readers (α = 0.67 vs. α = 0.39).
CONCLUSIONS: ymrT-staging is moderately accurate; accuracy is higher in poorly responding patients with predominant tumour but low in good responders with predominant fibrosis, resulting in significant overstaging. Radiologists should shift their focus from ymrT-staging to detecting gross residual (and progressive) disease, and identifying potential candidates for organ preservation who would benefit from further clinical and endoscopic evaluation to guide final treatment planning.