RESUMEN
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death. Rectal cancer accounts for approximately one-third of new colorectal cancer cases, with adenocarcinoma as the predominant subtype. Despite an overall decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, due to advancements in screening, early diagnosis, and treatment options, there is a concerning increase in incidence rates among young patients. Recent significant advances in managing locally advanced rectal cancer, such as the establishment of different surgical approaches, neoadjuvant treatment using different protocols for high-risk cases, and the adoption of organ-preservation strategies, have increased the importance of the role played by radiologists in locoregional assessment on magnetic resonance imaging at baseline, at restaging, and during active surveillance of patients with rectal cancer. In this article, we review the role of restaging rectal magnetic resonance imaging after neoadjuvant therapy, providing radiologists with a practical, step-by-step guide for assessing treatment response.
O câncer colorretal é o terceiro câncer mais comum e a segunda principal causa de morte relacionada ao câncer. O câncer retal representa aproximadamente um terço dos novos casos de câncer colorretal, sendo o adenocarcinoma o subtipo predominante. Apesar de uma diminuição geral na incidência e mortalidade, impulsionada por avanços na prevenção do câncer, diagnóstico precoce e opções de tratamento aprimoradas, há uma preocupante elevação nas taxas entre os pacientes jovens. Avanços recentes significativos no manejo do câncer retal localmente avançado, como abordagens cirúrgicas, o uso de diferentes protocolos de tratamento neoadjuvante para casos de alto risco e a adoção de estratégias de preservação de órgãos, aumentaram o papel dos radiologistas na avaliação locorregional por meio da ressonância magnética na avaliação inicial, reestadiamento e vigilância ativa de pacientes com câncer retal. Este manuscrito tem como objetivo revisar o papel da ressonância magnética retal no reestadiamento após terapia neoadjuvante, fornecendo aos radiologistas um guia prático para revisar exames nesse contexto.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent on MRI and are thought to be associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) necessitating long-term surveillance based on older studies suffering from selection bias. PURPOSE: To establish the percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI with a present or future PDAC. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review, meta-analysis. POPULATION: Adults with PCLs on MRI and a present or future diagnosis of PDAC were eligible. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched to April 2022 (PROSPERO:CRD42022320502). Studies limited to PCLs not requiring surveillance, <100 patients, or those with a history/genetic risk of PDAC were excluded. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: ≥1.5 T with ≥1 T2-weighted sequence. ASSESSMENT: Two investigators extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by a third. QUADAS-2 assessed bias. PDAC was diagnosed using a composite reference standard. STATISTICAL TESTS: A meta-analysis of proportions was performed at the patient-level with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Eight studies with 1289 patients contributed to the percentage of patients with a present diagnosis of PDAC, and 10 studies with 3422 patients to the percentage with a future diagnosis. Of patients with PCLs on MRI, 14.8% (95% CI 2.4-34.9) had a PDAC at initial MRI, which decreased to 6.0% (2.2-11.3) for studies at low risk of bias. For patients without PDAC on initial MRI, 2.0% (1.1-3.2) developed PDAC during surveillance, similar for low risk of bias studies at 1.9% (0.7-3.6), with no clear trend of increased PDAC for longer surveillance durations. For patients without worrisome features or high-risk stigmata, 0.9% (0.1-2.2) developed PDAC during surveillance. Of 10, eight studies had a median surveillance ≥3 years (range 3-157 months). Sources of bias included retrospectively limiting PCLs to those with histopathology and inconsistent surveillance protocols. DATA CONCLUSION: A low percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI develop PDAC while on surveillance. The first MRI revealing a PCL should be scrutinized for PDAC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.