Risk-Adapted Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Cancer: Final Report of the OCUM Study.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with rectal cancer can be restricted to those at high risk of locoregional recurrence (LR) without compromising oncological outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective multicenter interventional study, patients with rectal cancer (cT2-4, any cN, cM0) were classified according to the minimal distance between the tumor, suspicious lymph nodes or tumor deposits, and mesorectal fascia (mrMRF). Patients with a distance >1 mm underwent up-front total mesorectal excision (TME; low-risk group), whereas those with a distance ≤1 mm and/or cT4 and cT3 tumors in the lower rectal third received nCRT followed by TME surgery (high-risk group). The primary end point was 5-year LR rate. RESULTS: Of the 1,099 patients included, 884 (80.4%) were treated according to the protocol. A total of 530 patients (60%) underwent up-front surgery, and 354 (40%) had nCRT followed by surgery. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed 5-year LR rates of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.7 to 5.5) for patients treated per protocol, 2.9% (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.5) after up-front surgery, and 5.7% (95% CI, 3.2 to 8.2) after nCRT followed by surgery. The 5-year rate of distant metastases was 15.9% (95% CI, 12.6 to 19.2) and 30.5% (95% CI, 25.4 to 35.6), respectively. In a subgroup analysis of 570 patients with lower and middle rectal third cII and cIII tumors, 257 (45.1%) were at low-risk. The 5-year LR rate in this group was 3.8% (95% CI, 1.4 to 6.2) after up-front surgery. In 271 high-risk patients (involved mrMRF and/or cT4), the 5-year rate of LR was 5.9% (95% CI, 3.0 to 8.8) and of metastases 34.5% (95% CI, 28.6 to 40.4); disease-free survival and overall survival were the worst. CONCLUSION: The findings support the avoidance of nCRT in low-risk patients and suggest that in high-risk patients, neoadjuvant therapy should be intensified to improve prognosis.

Selection of patients with rectal cancer for neoadjuvant therapy using pre-therapeutic MRI - Results from OCUM trial.

PURPOSE: No consensus is available on the appropriate criteria for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy selection of patients with rectal cancer. The purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of MRI staging and determine the risk of over- and undertreatment by comparing MRI findings and histopathology. METHOD: In 609 patients of a multicenter study clinical T- and N categories, clinical stage and minimal distance between the tumor and mesorectal fascia (mrMRF) were determined using MRI and compared with the histopathological categories in resected specimen. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Overstaging was defined as the MRI category being higher than the histopathological category. mrMRF and circumferential resection margin (CRM) were judged as tumor free at a minimal distance > 1 mm. The chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test were used. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The T category was correct in 63.5% (386/608) of patients; cT was overstaged in 22.9% (139/608) and understaged in 13.5% (82/608). MRI accuracy for lymph node involvement was 56.5% (344/609); 22.2% (28/126) of patients with clinical stage II and 28.1% (89/317) with clinical stage III disease were diagnosed by histopathology as stage I. The accuracy for tumor free CRM was 86.5% (527/609) and the NPV was 98.1% (514/524). In 1.7% (9/524) mrMRF was false negative. CONCLUSION: MRI prediction of the tumor-free margin is more reliable than the prediction of tumor stage. MRF status as determined MRI should therefore be prioritized for decision making.

Avoidance of Overtreatment of Rectal Cancer by Selective Chemoradiotherapy: Results of the Optimized Surgery and MRI-Based Multimodal Therapy Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with rectal cancer carries a high risk of adverse effects. The aim of this study was to examine the selective application of nCRT based on patient risk profile, as determined by MRI, to find the optimal range between undertreatment and overtreatment. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective multicenter observational study, nCRT before total mesorectal excision (TME) was indicated in high-risk patients with involved or threatened mesorectal fascia (≤1 mm), or cT4 or cT3 carcinomas of the lower rectal third. All other patients received primary surgery. RESULTS: Of the 1,093 patients, 878 (80.3%) were treated according to the protocol, 526 patients (59.9%) underwent primary surgery, and 352 patients (40.1%) underwent nCRT followed by surgery. The 3-year locoregional recurrence (LR) rate was 3.1%. Of 604 patients with clinical stages II and III, 267 (44.2%) had primary surgery; 337 (55.8%) received nCRT followed by TME. The 3-year LR rate was 3.9%, without significant differences between groups. In patients with clinical stages II and III who underwent primary surgery, 27.3% were diagnosed with pathological stage I. CONCLUSIONS: The results justify the restriction of nCRT to high-risk patients with rectal cancer classified by pretreatment MRI. Provided that a high-quality MRI diagnosis, TME surgery, and standardized examination of the resected specimen are performed, nCRT, with its adverse effects, costs, and treatment time can be avoided in more than 40% of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer with minimal risk of undertreatment. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT325649).

MRI-Based Use of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Carcinoma: Surgical Quality and Histopathological Outcome of the OCUM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows highly reliable imaging of the mesorectal fascia (mrMRF) and its relationship to the tumor. The prospective multicenter observational study OCUM uses these findings to indicate neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in rectal carcinoma. METHODS: nCRT was indicated in patients with positive mrMRF (≤ 1 mm) in cT4 and cT3 carcinomas of the lower rectal third. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients (60.2%) underwent primary total mesorectal excision, and 348 patients (39.8%) underwent long-term nCRT followed by surgery. The mrMRF was involved in 4.6% of the primary surgery group and 80.7% of the nCRT group. Rates of resections within the mesorectal plane (90.8%), sparing of pelvic nerves on both sides (97.8%), and number of regional lymph nodes (95.3% with ≥ 12 lymph nodes examined) are indicative of high-quality surgery. Resection was classified as R0 in 98.3%, the pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) was negative in 95.1%. Patients in the nCRT group had more advanced carcinomas with a significantly higher rate of abdominoperineal excision. Independent risk factors for pCRM positivity were advanced stage (T4), metastatic lymph nodes, resection in the muscularis propria plane, and location in the lower third. CONCLUSIONS: The risk classification of rectal cancer patients by MRI seems to be highly reliable and allows the restriction of nCRT to approximately half of the patients with clinical stage II and III rectal carcinoma, provided there is a high-quality MRI diagnostic protocol, high-quality surgery, and standardized examination of the resected specimen.

Prospective Validation of a Low Rectal Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging Staging System and Development of a Local Recurrence Risk Stratification Model: The MERCURY II Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging classification that preoperatively assessed the relationship between tumor and the low rectal cancer surgical resection plane (mrLRP). BACKGROUND: Low rectal cancer oncological outcomes remain a global challenge, evidenced by high pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM) rates and unacceptable variations in permanent colostomies. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2012, a prospective, observational, multicenter study (MERCURY II) recruited 279 patients with adenocarcinoma 6 cm or less from the anal verge. MRI assessed the following: mrLRP "safe or unsafe," venous invasion (mrEMVI), depth of spread, node status, tumor height, and tumor quadrant. MRI-based treatment recommendations were compared against final management and pCRM outcomes. RESULTS: Overall pCRM involvement was 9.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.9-12.3], significantly lower than previously reported rates of 30%. Patients with no adverse MRI features and a "safe" mrLRP underwent sphincter-preserving surgery without preoperative radiotherapy, resulting in a 1.6% pCRM rate. The pCRM rate increased 5-fold for an "unsafe" compared with "safe" preoperative mrLRP [odds ratio (OR) = 5.5; 95% CI, 2.3-13.3)]. Posttreatment MRI reassessment indicated a "safe" ymrLRP in 33 of 113 (29.2%), none of whom had ypCRM involvement. In contrast, persistent "unsafe" ymrLRP posttherapy resulted in 17.5% ypCRM involvement. Further independent MRI assessed risk factors were EMVI (OR = 3.8; 95% CI, 1.5-9.6), tumors less than 4.0 cm from the anal verge (OR = 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-8.8), and anterior tumors (OR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-6.8). CONCLUSIONS: The study validated MRI low rectal plane assessment, reducing pCRM involvement and avoiding overtreatment through selective preoperative therapy and rationalized use of permanent colostomy. It also highlights the importance of posttreatment restaging.

MRI-based indications for neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in rectal carcinoma: interim results of a prospective multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated use of circumferential resection margin status in preoperative MRI (mrCRM) as an indication for neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (nRCT) in rectal carcinoma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter prospective study, nRCT was given to patients with carcinoma of the middle rectum with positive mrCRM (≤1 mm), with cT3 low rectal carcinoma, and all patients with cT4 tumors. The short-term endpoints were pathologic pCRM (≤1 mm) as a strong predictor of local recurrence rate and the quality of total mesorectal excision according to the plane of surgery. These endpoints were compared in patients with and without nRCT. RESULTS: Of 230 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 96 (41.7%) received a long course of nRCT and 134 (58.3%) were primarily operated on. The pCRM was positive in 13 of 230 (5.7%) (primarily operated on, 2 of 134 [1.5%]; after nRCT, 11 of 96 [11%]). In 1 of 134 (0.7%) case, the mrCRM was falsely negative. Patients at participating centers varied in terms of preoperative stage but not in pCRM positivity (0%-13%, P = .340). The plane of surgery was mesorectal (good) in 209 of 230 (90.9%), intramesorectal (moderate) in 16 of 230 (7%), and the muscularis propria plane (poor) in 2.2% (5 of 230). CONCLUSIONS: Low pCRM positivity and the high quality of mesorectal excision support use of MRI-based nRCT in rectal carcinoma. nRCT was avoidable in 45% of patients with stage II and III disease without significant risk of undertreatment. Preoperative MRI thus allows identification of patients with high risk of local recurrence and use of selective nRCT.

Whole-body MRI with assessment of hepatic and extraabdominal enhancement after administration of gadoxetic acid for staging of rectal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In TNM staging of rectal cancer by MRI, unspecific extracellular contrast agent Gd-DTPA is established for extrahepatic and vascular enhancement whereas liver-specific gadoxetic acid has proven high accurate detection of liver metastasis. PURPOSE: To compare intraindividually the qualification and quantification of enhancement in liver parenchyma, abdominal, pulmonary, and pelvic vessels between gadoxetic acid and Gd-DTPA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with histologically proven rectal carcinoma (mean age 62.9 years) were imaged twice by MRI. For pretherapeutic staging 10 mL gadoxetic acid (mean dose 0.032 mmol Gd/kg body weight) and for restaging after neoadjuvant therapy Gd-DTPA (0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight) were administered. The liver was acquired in arterial-dominant and portal venous phases, the thorax and pelvis were depicted in venous phases using three-dimensional T1-weighted sequences. Contrast enhancement was rated by two independent readers and compared by means of multinomial regression analysis using generalized estimating equations. Signal-to-noise ratios were compared by two-sided paired t-tests. RESULTS: Overall contrast enhancement was rated sufficient for diagnosis in all examinations and both contrast agents. Vascular enhancement was rated comparable with exception of the aorta, the peripheral intrahepatic veins, and the central lung vessels (p = 0.0182, p = 0.0053, p = 0.0083, in favor of Gd-DTPA). Quantitative evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences in parenchymal and vascular signal-to-noise ratios with exception of the aorta, and the central pulmonary artery (67.4 vs. 89.3; p = 0.0421, 44.5 vs. 59.5; p = 0.0446 respectively, in favor of Gd-DTPA). CONCLUSION: The contrast enhancement after gadoxetic acid is comparable to Gd-DTPA and appears suitable for comprehensive TNM-staging by combining high accurate liver-specific phases with efficacious vascular enhancement in the different anatomic regions.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based indication for neoadjuvant treatment of rectal carcinoma and the surrogate endpoint CRM status.

AIM: Is it possible to reduce the frequency of neoadjuvant therapy for rectal carcinoma and nevertheless achieve a rate of more than 90% circumferential resection margin (CRM)-negative resection specimens by a novel concept of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based therapy planning? MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty-one patients from Berlin and Mainz, Germany, with primary rectal carcinoma, without distant metastasis, underwent radical surgery with curative intention. Surgical procedures applied were anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) or partial mesorectal excision (PME; PME for tumours of the upper rectum) or abdominoperineal excision with TME. RESULTS: With MRI selection of the highest-risk cases, neoadjuvant therapy was given to only 62 of 181 (34.3%). The rate of CRM-negative resection specimens on histology was 170 of 181 (93.9%) for all patients, and in Berlin, only 1 of 93 (1%) specimens was CRM-positive. Patients selected for primary surgery had CRM-negative specimens on histology in 114 of 119 (95.8%). Those selected for neoadjuvant therapy had a lower rate of clear margin: 56 of 62 (90%). CONCLUSION: By applying a MRI-based indication, the frequency of neoadjuvant treatment with its acute and late adverse effects can be reduced to 30-35% without reduction of pathologically CRM-negative resection specimens and, thus, without the danger of worsening the oncological long-term results. This concept should be confirmed in prospective multicentre observation studies with quality assurance of MRI, surgery and pathology.