Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Clinical Trial

A Comparison of Liver MRI and Contrast-Enhanced CT as Standard Workup Before Treatment for Rectal Cancer in Usual Care - A Retrospective Study

Author(s): Jennifer Park*, Mattias Block, David Bock, Peter Kälebo, Peter Nilsson, Mattias Prytz and Eva Haglind

Volume 18, Issue 2, 2022

Published on: 12 July, 2021

Article ID: e120721194702 Pages: 7

DOI: 10.2174/1573405617666210712125028

conference banner
Abstract

Background: The liver is the most common site for rectal cancer metastases. Recommended standard pre-treatment workups have involved Computed Tomography (CT) for abdominal metastases, however, few hospitals have replaced this with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare MRI with CT as an index examination of the liver in the pre-treatment workup in usual care. The primary endpoint was the need for supplementary liver investigations.

Methods: Consecutive patients from two hospitals during 2013-2015 were identified in the Regional Swedish Colorectal Cancer Register and included in this retrospective study. Hospital records and radiology reports were reviewed. Inconclusive reports were re-evaluated by two radiologists.

Results: A total of 320 patients were included, and 293 were available for analysis. Some 175 and 118 patients had undergone CT and MRI respectively, as their index pre-treatment liver examination. Thirty-four (19.4%) in the CT group and 6 (5.1%) patients in the MRI group underwent supplementary liver investigation due to inconclusive index examination (RR 3.82, 95% CI: 1.66; 8.81, p=0.0017). Median time (q1; q3) from index examination to start of treatment was 50 (36; 68) days in the CT group and 34 (27; 45) days in the MRI group.

Conclusion: This retrospective study of two modalities within usual care found that MRI of the liver as index radiological workup before treatment for rectal cancer was associated with fewer supplementary liver investigations and a shorter time to start of treatment. Based on these findings, a prospective trial should be undertaken before implementing MRI as a standard.

Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03463616.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Glynne-Jones R, Wyrwicz L, Tiret E, Brown G, Rodel C, Cervantes A. Rectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2017; 28(suppl_4): iv22-40.
[2]
Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry. 2017. Available from:https://www.cancercentrum.se/globalassets/cancerdiagnoser/tjock-och-andtarm-anal/kvalitetsregister/tjock-och-andtarm-fr.-2018/rektalrapport_2017.pdf Date of access: 05-11-2021.
[3]
Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49(6): 1374-403.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027] [PMID: 23485231]
[4]
Zech CJ, Korpraphong P, Huppertz A, et al. Randomized multicentre trial of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI versus conventional MRI or CT in the staging of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Br J Surg 2014; 101(6): 613-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9465] [PMID: 24652690]
[5]
Floriani I, Torri V, Rulli E, et al. Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31(1): 19-31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22010] [PMID: 20027569]
[6]
Achiam MP, Løgager VB, Skjoldbye B, et al. Preoperative CT versus diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the liver in patients with rectal cancer; A prospective randomized trial. PeerJ 2016; 4: e1532.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1532] [PMID: 26793420]
[7]
Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J. Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: A meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 2010; 257(3): 674-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100729] [PMID: 20829538]
[8]
Regional Cancer Centers Collaboration. National cancer care guidelines for colorectal cancer [national cancer care guidelines]. 2016; 272. Available from:www.cancercentrum.se
[9]
Baeßler B, Maintz D, Persigehl T. Imaging procedures for colorectal cancer. Visc Med 2016; 32(3): 166-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000446143] [PMID: 27493943]
[10]
Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159(7): 702-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh090] [PMID: 15033648]
[11]
Barral M, Eveno C, Hoeffel C, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in colorectal cancer. J Visc Surg 2016; 153(5): 361-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.08.004] [PMID: 27618699]
[12]
Colagrande S, Castellani A, Nardi C, Lorini C, Calistri L, Filippone A. The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: A comparison with unenhanced and Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85(5): 1027-34.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.02.011] [PMID: 27130067]
[13]
Hwang JA, Kim YK, Min JH, Song KD, Sohn I, Ahn HS. Non- contrast liver MRI as an alternative to gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for liver metastasis from colorectal cancer. Acta Radiol 2019; 60(4): 441-50.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0284185118788901] [PMID: 30130970]
[14]
Roder D, Karapetis CS, Olver I, et al. Time from diagnosis to treatment of colorectal cancer in a South Australian clinical registry cohort: How it varies and relates to survival. BMJ Open 2019; 9(9): e031421.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031421] [PMID: 31575579]
[15]
Strous MTA, Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Vogelaar FJ. Impact of therapeutic delay in colorectal cancer on overall survival and cancer recurrence - is there a safe timeframe for prehabilitation? Eur J Surg Oncol 2019; 45(12): 2295-301.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.009] [PMID: 31362842]
[16]
Zarcos-Pedrinaci I, Fernández-López A, Téllez T, et al. Factors that influence treatment delay in patients with colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 2017; 8(22): 36728-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.13574] [PMID: 27888636]
[17]
Korsgaard M, Pedersen L, Laurberg S. Delay of diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer-a population-based Danish study. Cancer Detect Prev 2008; 32(1): 45-51.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cdp.2008.01.001] [PMID: 18406067]
[18]
Bergin RJ, Emery J, Bollard RC, et al. Rural-urban disparities in time to diagnosis and treatment for colorectal and breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018; 27(9): 1036-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0210] [PMID: 29987098]
[19]
Dejardin O, Remontet L, Bouvier AM, et al. Socioeconomic and geographic determinants of survival of patients with digestive cancer in France. Br J Cancer 2006; 95(7): 944-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603335] [PMID: 16969351]
[20]
Blake KD, Moss JL, Gaysynsky A, Srinivasan S, Croyle RT. Making the case for investment in rural cancer control: an analysis of rural cancer incidence, mortality, and funding trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26(7): 992-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0092] [PMID: 28600296]
[21]
Robertson R, Campbell NC, Smith S, et al. Factors influencing time from presentation to treatment of colorectal and breast cancer in urban and rural areas. Br J Cancer 2004; 90(8): 1479-85.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601753] [PMID: 15083172]
[22]
Sessler DI, Imrey PB. Clinical research methodology 3: Randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg 2015; 121(4): 1052-64.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000862] [PMID: 26378705]
[23]
Sessler DI, Imrey PB. Clinical research methodology 1: Study designs and methodologic sources of error. Anesth Analg 2015; 121(4): 1034-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000815] [PMID: 26378703]
[24]
Smajerova M, Petrasova H, Little J, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the evaluation of incidental focal liver lesions: A cost-effectiveness analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(38): 8605-14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i38.8605] [PMID: 27784973]
[25]
Ramsey SD, Willke RJ, Glick H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2015; 18(2): 161-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001] [PMID: 25773551]
[26]
Moberger P, Sköldberg F, Birgisson H. Evaluation of the swedish colorectal cancer registry: An overview of completeness, timeliness, comparability and validity. Acta Oncol 2018; 57(12): 1611-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2018.1529425] [PMID: 30477372]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
15
3
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy