Gastric Cancer Staging: Is It Time for Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

Gastric cancer (GC) is a common cancer worldwide. Its incidence and mortality vary depending on geographic area, with the highest rates in Asian countries, particularly in China, Japan, and South Korea. Accurate imaging staging has become crucial for the application of various treatment strategies, especially for curative treatments in early stages. Unfortunately, most GCs are still diagnosed at an advanced stage, with the peritoneum (61-80%), distant lymph nodes (44-50%), and liver (26-38%) as the most common metastatic locations. Metastatic disease is limited to the peritoneum in 58% of cases; in nonperitoneal distant metastases, the most involved GC metastasization site is the liver (82%). The eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging system is the most commonly used system for determining GC prognosis. Endoscopic ultrasonography, computed tomography, and 18-fluorideoxyglucose positron emission tomography are historically the most accurate imaging techniques for GC staging. However, studies have recently shown renewed interest in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a useful tool in GC staging, especially for distant metastasis assessment. The technical improvement of diffusion-weighted imaging and the increasing use of hepatobiliary contrast agents have been shown to increase the diagnostic performance of MRI, particularly for detecting peritoneal and liver metastasis. However, no principal oncological guidelines have included the use of MRI as a first-line technique for distant metastasis evaluation during the GC staging process, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. This review analyzed the role of the principal imaging techniques in GC diagnosis and staging, focusing on the potential role of MRI, especially for assessing peritoneal and liver metastases.

An astonishing case of liver-only metastatic colorectal cancer cured by FOLFOXIRI alone.

The array of tools currently available and the aim of treatment make choosing the best therapeutic strategy in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) an increasing challenge worldwide. We present the case of a 53-year-old man with metachronous metastases (liver-only metastatic disease) treated with FOLFOXIRI as first-line treatment. In March 2010, a colonoscopy carried out for persistent constipation revealed a neoplastic stenosing mass. After a month, the patient underwent a low anterior rectal resection with colorectal anastomosis; no metastases were found on the computed tomography scan. Histology confirmed adenocarcinoma (pT3N0M0; stage IIA). No adjuvant treatment was given because of the absence of negative prognostic and molecular factors in stage II. After 6 months of follow-up, a computed tomography scan and F-FDG PET showed five focal hepatic lesions. We decided to start a FOLFOXIRI regimen aimed at conversion. The patient had a complete clinical and radiological response to chemotherapy after eight cycles. After 7 years, the patient is currently without any evidence of recurrence or progression of the disease. Few literature reports suggest that chemotherapy alone can cure patients with CRC liver metastases. Although regimens including oxaliplatin have never been reported as potential healing tools, the FOLFOXIRI chemotherapeutic schedule (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil) showed a high response rate in mCRC and can even cure the metastatic disease in sporadic cases.

Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.