Imaging for guiding a more tailored approach in rectal cancer patients

We read with great interest the paper by Chen et al. (1) that demonstrated the usefulness of Three-dimensional endorectal ultrasound (3D-ERUS) in rectal cancer evaluation after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT). The authors showed how the volume reduction of the rectal mass after pCRT allows the identification of good [tumor regression grade (TRG) 0 or 1] and complete responders (TRG 0) to neoadjuvant treatment with a high accuracy.

The finding that the reduction of the volume of the rectal lesion is related to the response to pCRT is not new, but has mainly been detected in staging and restaging examinations performed with CT and MRI (2-4) and not with 3D-ERUS. These results are of interest since ERUS can be and additional tool that could be added to the standard restaging system mainly based on endoscopy and MRI, since it is a not expensive and radiation/contrast free imaging tool that could be easily introduced in the restaging work-flow of rectal cancer patients. Moreover, this finding is of outmost importance since the paradigm of rectal cancer treatment is progressively moving towards rectum sparing approaches especially among patients achieving complete response after pCRT (5,6).

In the last years, the clinical interest towards rectum sparing approaches such as transanal local excision (LE) and watch and wait approaches has increased, since they proved to spare morbidity of total mesorectal excision (TME) while providing acceptable oncological outcomes in selected patients (5,6). The key question in these approaches is how accurate can be the prediction of pathological response among clinical complete responders, since, the more accurate is the restaging the more tailored can be the treatment of each patient affected by rectal cancer.

Several efforts have been made to compare different techniques in predicting complete pathological response (7,8). Previous studies can be divided in 2 groups. First, the application of texture analysis on the classical radiological images of restaging (8-11); second, the use of innovative imaging techniques and their application to correlate complete clinical response with complete pathological response (12-15).

The texture analysis showed promising results. This technique can extract a large amount of data that cannot be identified nor measured visually by the eye of the radiologists. The quantification and precise measurements of the normally qualitative evaluated parameters of imaging data has been demonstrated to be useful in rectal cancer (8-11). In the normal clinical setting on MR images the development of fibrosis after pCRT inside the rectal lesion is identified as a low signal in T2-wieghted sequences and a low signal on high b values diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences (16). Thus, the pixel-by-pixel analysis performed by texture analysis can easily differentiate the presence of small foci of tumor cells in the lesion compared to the qualitative evaluation of the radiologist.

Among the new techniques, PET/MRI (14) showed the most promising results. With this technique it is possible to combine precise anatomical and morphological data obtained by MR sequences and functional data deriving from MR sequences (i.e., DWI sequences) and PET images. In a recent systematic review 18F-FDG PET/MRI showed a better accuracy in T and N staging compared to PET/CT or MRI, confirming a role of this technique in selecting patients that can be managed with a rectum sparing approach (14).

Both texture analysis using PET and MR images and innovative techniques can be used together to further improve the imaging accuracy (17,18). In the ongoing trials on rectum sparing approaches the clinical complete response is evaluated with endoscopy and digital rectal examination while MRI is the reference standard tool to exclude loco-regional nodal metastases (5,6). The future could include a multimodal imaging evaluation for T and N restaging, including both ERUS and MRI evaluation, with subsequent texture analysis of the images, aiming to obtain the most accurate assessment of the disease, while sparing contrast media or exposure to radiation.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Annals of Translational Medicine. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-3498/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Chen L, Liu X, Zhang W, et al. The predictive value of tumor volume reduction ratio on three-dimensional endorectal ultrasound for tumor response to chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann Transl Med 2022;10:666. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Zhang C, Ye F, Liu Y, et al. Morphologic predictors of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Oncotarget 2018;9:4862-74. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Neri E, Guidi E, Pancrazi F, et al. MRI tumor volume reduction rate vs tumor regression grade in the pre-operative re-staging of locally advanced rectal cancer after chemo-radiotherapy. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:2438-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Pomerri F, Pucciarelli S, Gennaro G, et al. Comparison between CT volume measurement and histopathological assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:3918-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Barina A, De Paoli A, Delrio P, et al. Rectal sparing approach after preoperative radio- and/or chemotherapy (RESARCH) in patients with rectal cancer: a multicentre observational study. Tech Coloproctol 2017;21:633-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Nadalin W, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy: long-term results. Ann Surg 2004;240:711-7; discussion 717-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Mahadevan LS, Zhong J, Venkatesulu B, et al. Imaging predictors of treatment outcomes in rectal cancer: An overview. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2018;129:153-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Thomas JV, Abou Elkassem AM, Ganeshan B, et al. MR Imaging Texture Analysis in the Abdomen and Pelvis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2020;28:447-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Chee CG, Kim YH, Lee KH, et al. CT texture analysis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A potential imaging biomarker for treatment response and prognosis. PLoS One 2017;12:e0182883. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Antunes JT, Ofshteyn A, Bera K, et al. Radiomic Features of Primary Rectal Cancers on Baseline T2 -Weighted MRI Are Associated With Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: A Multisite Study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:1531-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Crimì F, Capelli G, Spolverato G, et al. MRI T2-weighted sequences-based texture analysis (TA) as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Radiol Med 2020;125:1216-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Granata V, Fusco R, Belli A, et al. Diffusion weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging in abdominal oncological setting: why and when. Infect Agent Cancer 2022;17:25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Borgheresi A, De Muzio F, Agostini A, et al. Lymph Nodes Evaluation in Rectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand and Future Perspective. J Clin Med 2022;11:2599. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Crimì F, Valeggia S, Baffoni L, et al. [18F]FDG PET/MRI in rectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2021;35:281-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Crimì F, Spolverato G, Lacognata C, et al. 18F-FDG PET/MRI for Rectal Cancer TNM Restaging After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy: Initial Experience. Dis Colon Rectum 2020;63:310-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Maas M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol 2018;28:1465-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Giannini V, Mazzetti S, Bertotto I, et al. Predicting locally advanced rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy with 18F-FDG PET and MRI radiomics features. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:878-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Capelli G, Campi C, Bao QR, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/MRI texture analysis in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Nucl Med Commun 2022;43:815-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]