4.5 Article

MRI tumour regression grade in locally recurrent rectal cancer

Journal

BJS OPEN
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac033

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the agreement between magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) and pathological regression grade (pTRG) in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). The reproducibility of mrTRG was found to be limited among radiologists and the agreement with pTRG was low. However, a shorter interval between MRI and surgery improved the agreement and if assessed by a dedicated radiologist, mrTRG could predict good responders.
Background This study aimed to investigate the agreement between magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) and pathological regression grade (pTRG) in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Also, the reproducibility of mrTRG was investigated. Methods All patients with LRRC who underwent a resection between 2010 and 2018 after treatment with induction chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation in whom a restaging MRI was available were retrospectively selected. All MRI scans were reassessed by two independent radiologists using the mrTRG, and the pTRG was reassessed by an independent pathologist. The interobserver agreement between the radiologists as well as between the radiologists and the pathologist was assessed with the weighted kappa test. A subanalysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the interval between imaging and surgery. Results Out of 313 patients with LRRC treated during the study interval, 124 patients were selected. Interobserver agreement between the radiologists was fair (k = 0.28) using a two-tier grading system (mrTRG 1-2 versus mrTRG 3-5). For the lead radiologist, agreement with pTRG was moderate (k = 0.52; 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.68) when comparing good (mrTRG 1-2 and Mandard 1-2) and intermediate/poor responders (mrTRG 3-5 and Mandard 3-5), and the agreement was fair between the other abdominal radiologist and pTRG (k = 0.39; 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.56). A shorter interval (less than 7 weeks) between MRI and surgery resulted in an improved agreement (k = 0.69), compared with an interval more than 7 weeks (k = 0.340). For the lead radiologist, the positive predictive value for predicting good responders was 95 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 71 per cent to 99 per cent), whereas this was 56 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 44 per cent to 66 per cent) for the other radiologist. Conclusion This study showed that, in LRRC, the reproducibility of mrTRG among radiologists is limited and the agreement of mrTRG with pTRG is low. However, a shorter interval between MRI and surgery seems to improve this agreement and, if assessed by a dedicated radiologist, mrTRG could predict good responders. The magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) has a limited reproducibility amongst radiologist and a low agreement with the pathologic TRG (pTRG) in patients with LRRC. Therefore, treatment decision-making during the multidisciplinary team meetings cannot yet be based on the mrTRG. Future studies are needed to evaluate the optimal timing of the MRI, the prognostic value of mrTRG, and the value of mrTRG in combination with other imaging modalities such as PET/CT in LRRC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available