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 May 2;6(3):zrac033.
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac033.

MRI tumour regression grade in locally recurrent rectal cancer

Eva L K Voogt  1 , Stefi Nordkamp  1 , Desley M G I van Zoggel  1 , Alette W Daniëls-Gooszen  2 , Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen  1 , Johanne G Bloemen  1 , Geert-Jan Creemers  3 , Jeltsje S Cnossen  4 , Gesina van Lijnschoten  5 , Jacobus W A Burger  1 , Harm J T Rutten  1   6 , Joost Nederend  2
Affiliations

MRI tumour regression grade in locally recurrent rectal cancer

Eva L K Voogt et al. BJS Open. .

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to investigate the agreement between magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) and pathological regression grade (pTRG) in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Also, the reproducibility of mrTRG was investigated.

Methods: All patients with LRRC who underwent a resection between 2010 and 2018 after treatment with induction chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation in whom a restaging MRI was available were retrospectively selected. All MRI scans were reassessed by two independent radiologists using the mrTRG, and the pTRG was reassessed by an independent pathologist. The interobserver agreement between the radiologists as well as between the radiologists and the pathologist was assessed with the weighted kappa test. A subanalysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the interval between imaging and surgery.

Results: Out of 313 patients with LRRC treated during the study interval, 124 patients were selected. Interobserver agreement between the radiologists was fair (k = 0.28) using a two-tier grading system (mrTRG 1-2 versus mrTRG 3-5). For the lead radiologist, agreement with pTRG was moderate (k = 0.52; 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.68) when comparing good (mrTRG 1-2 and Mandard 1-2) and intermediate/poor responders (mrTRG 3-5 and Mandard 3-5), and the agreement was fair between the other abdominal radiologist and pTRG (k = 0.39; 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.56). A shorter interval (less than 7 weeks) between MRI and surgery resulted in an improved agreement (k = 0.69), compared with an interval more than 7 weeks (k = 0.340). For the lead radiologist, the positive predictive value for predicting good responders was 95 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 71 per cent to 99 per cent), whereas this was 56 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 44 per cent to 66 per cent) for the other radiologist.

Conclusion: This study showed that, in LRRC, the reproducibility of mrTRG among radiologists is limited and the agreement of mrTRG with pTRG is low. However, a shorter interval between MRI and surgery seems to improve this agreement and, if assessed by a dedicated radiologist, mrTRG could predict good responders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart showing patient selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
MRI at baseline and after chemoradiotherapy showing a complete radiological response (mrTRG 1) and the corresponding histology imaging showing a complete response (pTRG 1). In this case, restaging was performed at less than 7 weeks. mrTRG, magnetic resonance tumour regression grade; pTRG, pathologic regression grade.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
MRI at baseline and after chemoradiotherapy showing a near complete radiological response (mrTRG 2). In this case, restaging was performed at less than 7 weeks. mrTRG, magnetic resonance tumour regression grade.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
MRI at baseline and after chemoradiotherapy showing a moderate radiological response (mrTRG 3). In this case, restaging was performed at more than 7 weeks. mrTRG, magnetic resonance tumour regression grade.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
MRI at baseline and after chemoradiotherapy showing a slight radiological response (mrTRG 4). In this case, restaging was performed at more than 7 weeks. mrTRG, magnetic resonance tumour regression grade.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
MRI at baseline and after chemoradiotherapy showing no radiological response (mrTRG 5) and the corresponding histology imaging showing no regressive changes (pTRG 5). In this case, restaging was performed at less than 7 weeks. mrTRG, magnetic resonance tumour regression grade; pTRG, pathologic regression grade.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siddiqui MRS, Gormly KL, Bhoday J, Balyansikova S, Battersby NJ, Chand Met al. . Interobserver agreement of radiologists assessing the response of rectal cancers to preoperative chemoradiation using the MRI tumour regression grading (mrTRG). Clin Radiol 2016;71:854–862 - PubMed
    1. Patel UB, Taylor F, Blomqvist L, George C, Evans H, Tekkis Pet al. . Magnetic resonance imaging-detected tumor response for locally advanced rectal cancer predicts survival outcomes: MERCURY experience. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3753–3760 - PubMed
    1. Sclafani F, Brown G, Cunningham D, Wotherspoon A, Mendes LST, Balyasnikova Set al. . Comparison between MRI and pathology in the assessment of tumour regression grade in rectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2017;117:1478–1485 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bosman SJ, Holman FA, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Martijn H, Creemers GJ, Rutten HJT. Feasibility of reirradiation in the treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2014;101:1280–1289 - PubMed
    1. van der Meij W, Rombouts AJM, Rutten H, Bremers AJA, De Wilt JHW. Treatment of locally recurrent rectal carcinoma in previously (chemo)irradiated patients: a review. Dis Colon Rectum 2016;59:148–156 - PubMed