RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Neoplasias do Ânus , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas , Radiologia , Humanos , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons combinada à Tomografia Computadorizada , Prova Pericial , Neoplasias do Ânus/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias do Ânus/patologia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patologia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons , Fluordesoxiglucose F18RESUMO
The treatment of rectal cancer centers around the distinct but related goals of management of distant metastases and management of local disease. Optimal local management requires attention to the primary tumor and its anatomic relationship to surrounding pelvic structures, with the goal of minimizing local recurrence (LR). High-resolution MRI is ideally suited for this purpose; application of MRI-based criteria in conjunction with optimized surgical and pathologic techniques has successfully reduced LR rates. This success has led to a shift away from using the TNM-based National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines as the sole determinant of whether a patient receives neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The new model uses a hybrid approach for assigning risk categories that combines elements of the TNM staging system with MRI-based anatomic features. These risk categories incorporate tumor proximity to the circumferential resection margin, T category, distance to the anal verge, and presence of extramural venous invasion to classify rectal tumors as low, intermediate, or high risk. This approach has been validated by accumulated data from numerous multiinstitutional studies. This article illustrates key anatomic concepts, depicts common interpretive errors and pitfalls, and discusses ongoing limitations; these insights should guide radiologists in optimal rectal MRI interpretation.
Assuntos
Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Terapia Neoadjuvante/métodos , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias Retais/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias Retais/terapia , Humanos , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Reto/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Different molecular subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have previously been identified through analysis of gene expression profiles. The luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype has been shown to have a lower rate of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than other TNBC subtypes. The purpose of this study was to determine if the imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR (androgen receptor) status, which is a surrogate immunohistochemical (IHC) marker for the chemoresistant LAR subtype of TNBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This sub-study was part of a clinical trial in patients with stage I-III TNBC who were prospectively monitored for response while receiving neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) at a single comprehensive cancer center. This interim imaging analysis included 144 patients with known AR status measured by IHC. AR-positive (AR+) tumors were defined as those in which at least 10% of tumor cells had positive nuclear AR staining. Two experienced, fellowship-trained breast radiologists who were blinded to the IHC results retrospectively reviewed and reached consensus on all imaging studies for the index lesion (i.e., mammogram, ultrasound, and breast magnetic resonance imaging). The index lesion for each patient was reviewed and described according to the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify imaging features predictive of AR status. p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Univariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.02), mass with calcifications (p = 0.05), irregular mass shape on mammography (p = 0.03), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.003). Multivariate logistic regression models for AR status showed that AR+ TNBC was significantly associated with heterogeneously dense breast composition on mammography (p = 0.01), high mass density on mammography (p = 0.003), and irregular mass shape on sonography (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: The imaging features of TNBCs differ by AR status. Multimodality breast imaging may help identify the LAR subtype of TNBC, which has been shown to be a subtype that is relatively resistant to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Assuntos
Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Mama/metabolismo , Receptores Androgênicos/metabolismo , Neoplasias de Mama Triplo Negativas/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias de Mama Triplo Negativas/metabolismo , Adulto , Idoso , Biomarcadores Tumorais/metabolismo , Mama/patologia , Feminino , Regulação Neoplásica da Expressão Gênica , Humanos , Mamografia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Neoplasias de Mama Triplo Negativas/patologiaRESUMO
Importance: A pathologic complete response (pCR; no invasive or in situ cancer) occurs in 40% to 50% of patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) and triple-negative (TN) breast cancer. The need for surgery if percutaneous biopsy of the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) indicates pCR in the breast (hereinafter referred to as breast pCR) has been questioned, and appropriate management of the axilla in such patients is unknown. Objective: To identify patients among exceptional responders to NCT with a low risk for axillary metastases when breast pCR is documented who may be eligible for an omission of surgery clinical trial design. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study at a single-institution academic national comprehensive cancer center included 527 consecutive patients with HER2+/TN (T1/T2 and N0/N1) cancer treated with NCT followed by standard breast and nodal surgery from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients who achieved a breast pCR were compared with patients who did not based on subtype, initial ultrasonographic findings, and documented pathologic nodal status. Incidence of positive findings for nodal disease on final pathologic review was calculated for patients with and without pCR and compared using relative risk ratios with 95% CIs. Results: The analysis included 527 patients (median age, 51 [range, 23-84] years). Among 290 patients with initial nodal ultrasonography showing N0 disease, 116 (40.4%) had a breast pCR and 100% had no evidence of axillary lymph node metastases after NCT. Among 237 patients with initial biopsy-proved N1 disease, 69 of 77 (89.6%) with and 68 of 160 (42.5%) without a breast pCR had no evidence of residual nodal disease (P < .01). Patients without a breast pCR had a relative risk for positive nodal metastases of 7.4 (95% CI, 3.7-14.8; P < .001) compared with those with a breast pCR. Conclusions and Relevance: Breast pCR is highly correlated with nodal status after NCT, and the risk for missing nodal metastases without axillary surgery in this cohort is extremely low. These data provide the fundamental basis and rationale for management of the axilla in clinical trials of omission of cancer surgery when image-guided biopsy indicates a breast pCR.