Comparison between pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT in baseline staging and radiation planning of anal squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the differences in baseline staging of anal squamous cell carcinoma based on CT, MRI, and PET/CT, and the resultant impact on the radiation plan. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent baseline pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT (all examinations within 3 weeks of each other) from January 2010 to April 2020. CTs, MRIs, and PET/CTs were re-interpreted by three separate radiologists. Several imaging features were assessed; tumor stage was determined based on the eight edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual; and T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) categories were determined based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Radiologist assessments were then randomly presented to a radiation oncologist who formulated the radiation plan in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: Across 28 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 31-78], T-category classification was significantly different on PET/CT compared to MRI and CT (p = 0.037 and 0.031, respectively). PET/CT staged a higher proportion of patients with T1/T2 disease (16/28, 57%) compared to MRI (11/28, 39%) and CT (10/28, 36%). MRI staged a higher proportion of patients with T3/T4 disease (14/28, 50%) compared to CT (12/28, 43%) and PET/CT (11/28, 39%). However, there was no significant difference between the three imaging modalities in terms of either N-category, AJCC staging, or NCCN TNM group classification, or in treatment planning. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory study showed that MRI demonstrated a higher proportion of T3/T4 tumors, while PET/CT demonstrated more T1/T2 tumors; however, MRI, CT, and PET/CT did not show any significant differences in AJCC and TNM group categories, nor was there any significant difference in treatment doses between them when assessed independently by an experienced radiation oncologist.

Imaging of Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Survey Results and Expert Opinion from the Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology.

The role and method of image-based staging of anal cancer has evolved with the rapid development of newer imaging modalities and the need to address the rising incidence of this rare cancer. In 2014, the European Society of Medical Oncology mandated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer and subsequently other societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network followed suit with similar recommendations. Nevertheless, great variability exists from center to center and even within individual centers. Notably, this is in stark contrast to the imaging of the anatomically nearby rectal cancer. As participating team members for this malignancy, we embarked on a comprehensive literature review of anal cancer imaging to understand the relative merits of these new technologies which developed after computed tomography (CT), e.g., MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The results of this literature review helped to inform our next stage: questionnaire development regarding the imaging of anal cancer. Next, we distributed the questionnaire to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Rectal and Anal Disease-Focused Panel, a group of abdominal radiologists with special interest, experience, and expertise in rectal and anal cancer, to provide expert radiologist opinion on the appropriate anal cancer imaging strategy. In our expert opinion survey, experts advocated the use of MRI in general (65% overall and 91-100% for primary staging clinical scenarios) and acknowledged the superiority of PET/CT for nodal assessment (52-56% agreement for using PET/CT in primary staging clinical scenarios compared to 30% for using MRI). We therefore support the use of MRI and PET and suggest further exploration of PET/MRI as an optimal combined evaluation. Our questionnaire responses emphasized the heterogeneity in imaging practice as performed at numerous academic cancer centers across the United States and underscore the need for further reconciliation and establishment of best imaging practice guidelines for optimized patient care in anal cancer.

CT Imaging Findings in Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Acute Abdominal Symptoms: Experience at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomography (CT) findings in patients with ovarian cancer presenting to a comprehensive cancer center's urgent care unit with acute abdominal symptoms. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with ovarian cancer who underwent abdominal CT at a comprehensive cancer center's urgent care unit between January 1, 2018, and January 14, 2020, due to acute abdominal symptoms. Two abdominal radiologists reviewed the abdominal CT reports, categorizing imaging findings as follows: (a) no new or acute finding, (b) new or increased bowel or gastric obstruction, (c) new or increased ascites, (d) new or increased peritoneal carcinomatosis, (e) new or increased nonperitoneal metastases, (f) new inflammatory or infectious changes, (g) new or increased hydronephrosis, (h) new or increased biliary dilatation, (i) new vascular complications, or (j) new bowel perforation. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 22-87) underwent a total of 259 abdominal CT scans, of which 217/259 (83.8%) scans were found to have new or increased findings. A total of 115/259 (44.4%) scans had only one finding while 102/259 (39.4%) scans had 2 or more findings. Altogether, 382 new or increased findings were detected: findings were most commonly related to bowel or gastric obstruction (92/382, 24.1%) with small bowel obstruction being the most common finding (80/382, 20.9%); ascites (78/382, 20.4%); peritoneal carcinomatosis (62/382, 16.2%); and nonperitoneal metastases (62/382, 16.2%). Inflammatory or infectious findings accounted for 30/382 (7.9%) findings. CONCLUSION: Most patients with ovarian cancer presenting with acute abdominal had relevant positive findings on abdominal CT, with small bowel obstruction being the most common finding.

Prostatic Artery Embolization: Indications, Preparation, Techniques, Imaging Evaluation, Reporting, and Complications.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a noncancerous growth of the transitional zone of the prostate, which surrounds the prostatic urethra. Consequently, it can cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and bladder outlet obstruction symptoms that may substantially reduce a patient's quality of life. Several treatments are available for BPH, including medications such as α-blockers and 5α-reductase inhibitors and surgical options including transurethral resection of the prostate and prostatectomy. Recently, prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment option for selected men with BPH and moderate to severe LUTS. Adequate pre- and postprocedural evaluations with clinical examinations and questionnaires, laboratory tests, and urodynamic and imaging examinations (particularly US, MRI, and CT) are of key importance to achieve successful treatment. Considering that the use of PAE has been increasing in tertiary hospital facilities, radiologists and interventional radiologists should be aware of the main technical concepts of PAE and the key features to address in imaging reports in pre- and postprocedural settings. An invited commentary by Lopera is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2021.

Sorafenib for Advanced and Refractory Desmoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumors (also referred to as aggressive fibromatosis) are connective tissue neoplasms that can arise in any anatomical location and infiltrate the mesentery, neurovascular structures, and visceral organs. There is no standard of care. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 87 patients with progressive, symptomatic, or recurrent desmoid tumors to receive either sorafenib (400-mg tablet once daily) or matching placebo. Crossover to the sorafenib group was permitted for patients in the placebo group who had disease progression. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; rates of objective response and adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 27.2 months, the 2-year progression-free survival rate was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69 to 96) in the sorafenib group and 36% (95% CI, 22 to 57) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.31; P<0.001). Before crossover, the objective response rate was 33% (95% CI, 20 to 48) in the sorafenib group and 20% (95% CI, 8 to 38) in the placebo group. The median time to an objective response among patients who had a response was 9.6 months (interquartile range, 6.6 to 16.7) in the sorafenib group and 13.3 months (interquartile range, 11.2 to 31.1) in the placebo group. The objective responses are ongoing. Among patients who received sorafenib, the most frequently reported adverse events were grade 1 or 2 events of rash (73%), fatigue (67%), hypertension (55%), and diarrhea (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with progressive, refractory, or symptomatic desmoid tumors, sorafenib significantly prolonged progression-free survival and induced durable responses. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02066181 .).