Pelvic CT in addition to MRI to differentiate between rectal and sigmoid cancer on imaging using the sigmoid take-off as a landmark.

BACKGROUND: The sigmoid take-off (STO) is a recently established landmark to discern rectal from sigmoid cancer on imaging. STO-assessment can be challenging on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to varying axial planes. PURPOSE: To establish the benefit of using computed tomography (CT; with consistent axial planes), in addition to MRI, to anatomically classify rectal versus sigmoid cancer using the STO. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A senior and junior radiologist retrospectively classified 40 patients with rectal/rectosigmoid cancers using the STO, first on MRI-only (sagittal and oblique-axial views) and then using a combination of MRI and axial CT. Tumors were classified as rectal/rectosigmoid/sigmoid (according to published STO definitions) and then dichotomized into rectal versus sigmoid. Diagnostic confidence was documented using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Adding CT resulted in a change in anatomical tumor classification in 4/40 cases (10%) for the junior reader and in 6/40 cases (15%) for the senior reader. Diagnostic confidence increased significantly after adding CT for the junior reader (mean score 3.85 vs. 4.27; P < 0.001); confidence of the senior reader was not affected (4.28 vs. 4.25; P = 0.80). Inter-observer agreement was similarly good for MRI only (κ=0.77) and MRI + CT (κ=0.76). Readers reached consensus on the classification of rectal versus sigmoid cancer in 78%-85% of cases. CONCLUSION: Availability of a consistent axial imaging plane - in the case of this study provided by CT - in addition to a standard MRI protocol with sagittal and oblique-axial imaging views can be helpful to more confidently localize tumors using the STO as a landmark, especially for more junior readers.

Response assessment after (chemo)radiotherapy for rectal cancer: Why are we missing complete responses with MRI and endoscopy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate what features on restaging MRI and endoscopy led to a false clinical diagnosis of residual tumour in patients with a pathological complete response after rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients with an unrecognized complete response after (chemo)radiotherapy were selected in a tertiary referral centre for rectal cancer treatment. An unrecognized complete response was defined as a clinical incomplete response at MRI and/or endoscopy with a pathological complete response of the primary tumour after surgery. The morphology of the tumour bed and the lymph nodes were evaluated on post-CRT T2-weighted MRI (T2-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI). Post-CRT endoscopy images were evaluated for residual mucosal abnormalities. MRI and endoscopy features were correlated with histopathology. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with an unrecognized complete response were included. Mucosal abnormalities were present at restaging endoscopy in 84%, mixed signal intensity on T2-MRI in 53%, an irregular aspect of the former tumour location on T2-MRI in 69%, diffusion restriction on DWI in 51% and suspicious lymph nodes in 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Overstaging of residual tumour after (chemo)radiotherapy in rectal cancer is mainly due to residual mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy, mixed signal intensity or irregular fibrosis at T2-MRI, diffusion restriction at DWI and residual suspicious lymph nodes. Presence of these features is not definitely associated with residual tumour and in selected cases an extended waiting interval can be considered.