Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 7:12:616310.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.616310. eCollection 2022.

Percentage of Tumor Invasion at Pretreatment High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Associating With Aggressive and Tumor Response in Chinese T3 Rectal Cancer-Preliminary Results

Affiliations

Percentage of Tumor Invasion at Pretreatment High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Associating With Aggressive and Tumor Response in Chinese T3 Rectal Cancer-Preliminary Results

Xiaoxin Hu et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the ability of percentage of tumor invasion (PTI) of T3 rectal cancer on pretreatment MRI as an imaging biomarker to reflect aggressiveness and to predict tumor response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) in Chinese population.

Methods: A total of 107 Chinese rectal cancer patients who underwent pretreatment MRI staging as T3 were included. The extramural depth of tumor invasion (EMD), the distance between outer border of muscularis propria (MP) and mesorectal fascia (MRF) we called "thickness of the mesorectum (TM)") at the same slice and direction were measured at pretreatment MRI, and PTI was equal to EMD/TM, was calculated. The EMD and PTI of subgroups based on pretreatment CEA, CA19-9 levels; N category and pathological complete response (pCR) were compared. The parameters, which described tumor invasion, were compared between pCR and non-pCR group. Student t-tests and logistic analysis were applied.

Results: The pretreatment PTI was higher in CEA ≥5.2 ng/ml patients (58.52% ± 27.68%) than in CEA <5.2 ng/ml patients (47.27% ± 24.15%) (p = 0.034). The pretreatment EMD in non-pCR group (7.21 ± 2.85 mm) was higher than in pCR group (6.14 ± 3.56 mm) (p = 0.049). The pretreatment PTI in non-pCR group (57.4% ± 26.4%) was higher than in pCR group (47.3% ± 29.1%) (p = 0.041). Compared with patients with PTI ≥50%, MRF (+), more patients with PTI <50%, MRF (-) showed pCR (OR = 8.44, p = 0.005; OR = 6.32, p = 0.024).

Conclusion: The PTI obtained at pretreatment MRI may serve as an imaging biomarker to reflect tumor aggressiveness and predict which T3 rectal cancer patients may benefit from NCRT in Chinese population.

Keywords: chemoradiotherapy; feasibility studies; magnetic resonance imaging; neoplasm staging; rectal neoplasms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study population.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The EMD was measured and recorded using the calipers of workstation, and the TM from the outer edge of the MP to the MRF according to the same path of EMD and the PTI which was equal to EMD/TM were calculated.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Sixty-three-year-old woman with an mr-T3N0 rectal adenocarcinoma 5 cm from the anal verge. Pretreatment rectal MRI (A, B) before NCRT. The EMD was 6.1 mm (A), TM was 10.5 mm (B), and the calculated PTI was 58.1%. The rectal cancer had slightly regressed after NCRT. The postoperative staging confirmed by pathology was T3N0, and the tumor response was non-pCR.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sixty-seven-year-old man with an mr-T3N0 rectal adenocarcinoma 9.5 cm from the anal verge. Pretreatment rectal MRI (A, B) before NCRT. The EMD was 9.7 mm (A), the TM was 21.7 mm (B), and the calculated PTI was 44.7%. The rectal cancer had regressed after NCRT. The postoperative staging confirmed by pathology was T0N0, and the tumor response was pCR.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Nicholls RJ, Hall C. Treatment of Non-Disseminated Cancer of the Lower Rectum. Br J Surg (1996) 83:15–8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800830105 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ, Moran B, Blomqvist L, Swift I, et al. . MERCURY Study Group. Preoperative High- Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging can Identify Good Prognosis Stage I, II, and III Rectal Cancer Best Managed by Surgery Alone: A Prospective, Multicenter,European Study. Ann Surg (2011) 253:711–9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31820b8d52 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmoll HJ, Van Cutsem E, Stein A, Valentini V, Glimelius B, Haustermans K, et al. . ESMO Consensus Guidelines for Management of Patients With Colon and Rectal Cancer. A Personalized Approach to Clinical Decision Making. Ann Oncol (2012) 23:2479–516. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds236 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barrett MW. Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer: Current Methods. Semin Surg Oncol (1998) 15:114–9. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2388(199809)15:2<114::AID-SSU8>3.0.CO;2-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group . Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Overview of 8,507 Patients From 22randomised Trials. Lancet (2001) 358:1291–304. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06409-1 - DOI - PubMed