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
. 2025 Aug 15.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-025-11927-0. Online ahead of print.

How best to combine DWI and T2WI to predict pathologic complete response: a multi-center study on interpreting MRI following chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer

Hae Young Kim  1 , Nieun Seo  2 , Soon Nam Oh  3 , Sung Kyoung Moon  4 , Chul-Min Lee  5 , Jong Keon Jang  1 , Bohyun Kim  3 , Seung Hyun Cho  6 , Jun Seok Park  7   8 , Seong Ho Park  1 , Joon Seok Lim  9
Affiliations

How best to combine DWI and T2WI to predict pathologic complete response: a multi-center study on interpreting MRI following chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer

Hae Young Kim et al. Eur Radiol. .

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the different criteria of integrating diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) of rectal cancer on post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) MRI.

Materials and methods: In this multi-center retrospective study, five radiologists reviewed pre- and post-CRT MRIs of patients with rectal cancer diagnosed in 2017-2021. In addition to mrTRG, three criteria were assessed: "AND" criterion (mrTRG 1-2 and absence of DWI restriction considered as CR), "OR" criterion (mrTRG 1-2 or absence of restriction), and a modified MR tumor regression grade (modMR-TRG). A crossed random effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity across five radiologists. F1 score and positive predictive value (PPV) were analyzed across varying pCR rates.

Results: In 146 patients (median age [IQR], 63 [57-70] years; 87 men), the AND criterion yielded higher specificity (77.4% [63.3-80.0%] vs 75.3% [60.5-79.0%], p = 0.001) without significant difference in sensitivity (63.9% [42.8-75.3%] vs 67.5% [45.3-76.0%], p = 0.063) compared with mrTRG. OR criterion yielded higher sensitivity (86.1% [65.3-89.3%]; p < 0.001) but lower specificity (49.5% [36.2-62.6%]; p < 0.001). The modMR-TRG demonstrated similar effects to the OR criterion. Assuming a 20% pCR rate, PPV and F1 score of the AND criterion (point estimate of 41.4% and 50.3%, respectively) were higher than those of the OR criterion (PPV, 29.9%; F1 score, 44.4%), although the difference diminished with increasing pCR rate.

Conclusion: The AND criterion-which utilizes DWI complementarily to further exclude patients with residual tumors after initial screening on T2WI-should be preferred over other criteria giving greater emphasis on DWI.

Key points: Question How should diffusion-weighted images be combined with T2-weighted images in predicting complete tumor response of rectal cancer on MRI following CRT? Findings Compared to mrTRG, the AND criterion yielded higher specificity without a significant difference in sensitivity, while the OR and modMR-TRG criteria yielded higher sensitivity but lower specificity. Clinical relevance Our study explores practical strategies for integrating DWI with T2WI that can be applied in daily practice. The AND criterion by using DWI conservatively is preferred over OR criteria, which results in a disproportionately higher number of additional false-positives than additional true-positives.

Keywords: Chemoradiotherapy; Complete tumor response; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Rectal cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with ethical standards. Guarantor: The scientific guarantor of this publication is Nieun Seo. Conflict of interest: The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. Statistics and biometry: No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Informed consent: Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Ethical approval: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Study subjects or cohorts overlap: Study subjects or cohorts have not been previously reported elsewhere. Methodology: Retrospective Case-control study Multicenter study

References

    1. Maas M, Nelemans PJ, Valentini V et al (2010) Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 11:835–844 - PubMed
    1. Smith FM, Cresswell K, Myint AS, Renehan AG (2018) Is “watch-and-wait” after chemoradiotherapy safe in patients with rectal cancer?. BMJ 363:k4472 - PubMed
    1. van der Valk MJM, Hilling DE, Bastiaannet E et al (2018) Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the international watch & wait database (IWWD): an international multicentre registry study. Lancet 391:2537–2545 - PubMed
    1. Bahadoer RR, Dijkstra EA, van Etten B et al (2021) Short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy, TME, and optional adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (RAPIDO): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 22:29–42 - PubMed
    1. Conroy T, Bosset JF, Etienne PL et al (2021) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER-PRODIGE 23): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 22:702–715 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources