4.7 Review

Rectal MRI Interpretation After Neoadjuvant Therapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 353-369

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28426

Keywords

rectal cancer; magnetic resonance imaging; neoadjuvant therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer, including surgical approaches, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and organ preservation strategies. This review focuses on the role of rectal MRI in assessing treatment response after neoadjuvant therapy and discusses the challenges and methods in evaluating treatment response.
In recent years, several key advances in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer have been made, including the implementation of total mesorectal excision as the standard surgical approach; use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in selected patients with a high risk of local recurrence, and finally, adoption of organ preservation strategies, through either local excision or nonoperative management in selected patients with clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This review aims to shed light on the role of rectal MRI in the assessment of treatment response after neoadjuvant therapy, which is especially important given the growing feasibility of nonoperative management. First, an overview of current neoadjuvant therapies and response assessment based on digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI will be provided. Second, the use of a high-quality restaging rectal MRI protocol will be presented. Third, a step-by-step approach to assessing treatment response on restaging rectal MRI following neoadjuvant treatment will be outlined, acknowledging challenges faced by radiologists during MRI interpretation. Finally, research related to response assessment will be discussed. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 3

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available