Prognostic Value of Tumor Volume, Tumor Volume Reduction Rate and Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regression Grade in Rectal Cancer.

Background and Objectives: Rectal cancer poses significant treatment challenges, especially in advanced stages. Radiologic assessment, particularly with MRI, is critical for surgeons and oncologists to understand tumor dynamics and tailor treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to correlate MRI-based tumor volumetric and tumor regression grade analysis in patients with advanced rectal cancer, assessing the impact of preoperative chemotherapy (CT) alone or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on surgical technique choices. Materials and Methods: Between 2015 and 2022, a prospective study was enrolled, including a cohort of 89 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer at stage II or III. The participants were divided into two distinct therapy groups, ensuring an equal distribution with a ratio of 1:1. The initial group was treated with the contemporary preoperative chemotherapy protocol FOLFOX4. In contrast, the alternative group received conventional preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Before surgery, each patient underwent a rectal MRI scan at 1.5 T, including T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences. Results: The CT group showed a 36.52% tumor volume reduction rate (TVRR), and the CRT group showed 54.87%, with varying magnetic resonance and pathological tumor regression grades (mrTRG and pTRG). Analysis revealed a significant interaction between mrTRG and tumor volumetrics (volume and VRR) in both groups, especially CRT, underscoring the complexity of tumor response. Both treatment groups had similar initial tumor volumes, with CRT displaying a higher TVRR, particularly in higher pathological TRG (3/4) cases. This interaction and the strong correlation between mrTRG and pTRG suggest mrTRG's role as a non-invasive predictor for treatment response, highlighting the need for personalized treatment plans. Conclusions: Rectal tumor volume, volume reduction rate, and mrTRG are not just abstract measures; they are concrete indicators that have a direct and practical impact on surgical decision-making, planning, and prognosis, ultimately influencing the quality of care and life expectancy of patients with rectal cancer.

Comparison of tumor regression grade and clinical stage based on MRI image as a selection criterion for non-radical management after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: There has been no comparative study on the clinical value of magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG)1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for rectal cancer. We compared the diagnostic performance between mrTRG1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for predicting ypT0-1N0 as a selection criterion for non-radical management after CCRT in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 291 patients from three referral hospitals between January 2018 and March 2020. The diagnostic performance of ycT0-1N0 and mrTRG1-2 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 was compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (23.4%) achieved ypT0-1N0. Nineteen patients (6.5%) had ycT0-1N0, and 91 patients (31.2%) had mrTRG1-2. For predicting ypT0-1N0, ycT0-1N0 had a sensitivity of 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.36‒27.10) and positive-predictive value of 57.9% (95% CI: 36.57‒76.63), while mrTRG1-2 had a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% CI: 46.23‒70.63) and positive-predictive value of 44.0% (95% CI: 36.46‒51.74). When predicting ypT0-1N0, mrTRG1-2 showed a higher AUC (0.680, 95% CI: 0.604‒0.756) than ycT0-1N0 (0.563, 95% CI: 0.481‒0.645) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: mrTRG1-2 might be a better indicator than ycT0-1N0 for the selection of non-radical management of advanced rectal cancer post-CCRT. However, additional diagnostic tools are required for predicting ypT0-1N0 because mrTRG1-2 or yc stage on MRI has insufficient evidence for diagnosing ypT0-1N0.