Restaging magnetic resonance imaging of the rectum after neoadjuvant therapy: a practical guide.

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.

Mucinous Degeneration on MRI After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients With Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Frequency and Association With Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND. Patients with nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinoma may develop mucinous changes after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, which are described as mucinous degeneration. The finding's significance in earlier studies has varied. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency of mucinous degeneration on MRI after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma and to compare outcomes among patients with nonmucinous tumor, mucinous tumor, and mucinous degeneration on MRI. METHODS. This retrospective study included 201 patients (83 women, 118 men; mean age, 61.8 ± 2.2 [SD] years) with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision from October 2011 to November 2015, underwent baseline and restaging rectal MRI examinations, and had at least 2 years of follow-up. Two radiologists independently evaluated MRI examinations for mucin content, which was defined as T2 hyperintensity in the tumor or tumor bed, and resolved differences by consensus. Patients were classified into three groups on the basis of mucin status: those with nonmucinous tumor (≤ 50% mucin content on baseline and restaging examinations), those with mucinous tumor (> 50% mucin content on baseline and restaging examinations), and those with mucinous degeneration (≤ 50% mucin content on baseline examination and > 50% content on restaging examination). The three groups were compared. RESULTS. Interreader agreement for mucin content, expressed as a kappa coefficient, was 0.893 on baseline MRI and 0.890 on restaging MRI. Of the 201 patients, 156 (77.6%) had nonmucinous tumor, 34 (16.9%) had mucinous tumor, and 11 (5.5%) had mucinous degeneration. Mucin status was not significantly associated with complete pathologic response (p = .41) or local or distant recurrence (both p > .05). The death rate during follow-up was not significantly different (p = .21) between patients with nonmucinous tumor (23.1%), those with mucinous tumor (29.4%), and those with mucinous degeneration (9.1%). In adjusted Cox regression analysis, with mucinous degeneration used as reference, the HR for the overall survival rate for the mucinous tumor group was 4.7 (95% CI, 0.6-38.3; p = .14), and that for the nonmucinous tumor group was 8.0 (95% CI, 0.9-59.9; p = .06). On histopathologic assessment, all 11 patients with mucinous degeneration showed acellular mucin, yet 10 of 11 patients showed viable tumor (i.e., in nonmucinous portions of the tumors). CONCLUSION. Mucinous degeneration on MRI is not significantly associated with pathologic complete response, recurrence, or survival. CLINICAL IMPACT. Mucinous degeneration on MRI is uncommon and should not be deemed an indicator of pathologic complete response.