Accuracy of Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy MRI for the Assessment of Anal Sphincter Involvement in Patients with Rectal Cancer.

IF 5.6 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Maria El Homsi, Louis Fuqua, Tae-Hyung Kim, Maria Clara Fernandes, Jinru Shia, Maria Widmar, Charlie White, Marinela Capanu, Lee Rodriguez, Iva Petkovska
{"title":"Accuracy of Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy MRI for the Assessment of Anal Sphincter Involvement in Patients with Rectal Cancer.","authors":"Maria El Homsi, Louis Fuqua, Tae-Hyung Kim, Maria Clara Fernandes, Jinru Shia, Maria Widmar, Charlie White, Marinela Capanu, Lee Rodriguez, Iva Petkovska","doi":"10.1148/rycan.240208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To assess the accuracy of post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) MRI, as compared with that of pathologic evaluation, to determine anal sphincter involvement in patients with rectal cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017 whose baseline MRI showed anal sphincter involvement and who then underwent NAT, post-NAT MRI, and abdominoperineal resection. Four radiologists (with 20 years, 5 years, 2 years, and 1 year of experience) independently reviewed MRI findings. Resected specimens were reviewed by a gastrointestinal pathologist. Interreader agreement between the radiologists and pathologist was assessed using the Cohen κ statistic. Conditional sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the radiologists were calculated among patients for whom the radiologists and the pathologist agreed that the anal canal was involved. Results Thirty-two patients were included (mean age ± SD, 60 years ± 15; 19 male, 13 female). For the post-NAT assessment of anal sphincter involvement, agreement between readers 1, 2, and 4 and the pathologist was moderate (κ = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.91], 0.45 [95% CI: -0.06, 0.82], and 0.53 [95% CI: 0, 0.89], respectively). There was fair agreement between reader 3 and the pathologist (κ = 0.30 [95% CI: -0.09, 0.67]). Radiologists had high sensitivity for the detection of anal sphincter involvement (88%-100%), high PPV (88%-96%), and moderate to high specificity (50%-80%); the senior radiologist had the highest sensitivity, PPV, and specificity. Conclusion Radiologists had fair to moderate interreader agreement with the pathologist for post-NAT assessment of anal sphincter involvement in patients with rectal cancer and showed high conditional sensitivity regardless of their level of experience. <b>Keywords:</b> Abdomen/GI, Rectum, Oncology, Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy MRI <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> © RSNA, 2025.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 3","pages":"e240208"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130718/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.240208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To assess the accuracy of post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) MRI, as compared with that of pathologic evaluation, to determine anal sphincter involvement in patients with rectal cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017 whose baseline MRI showed anal sphincter involvement and who then underwent NAT, post-NAT MRI, and abdominoperineal resection. Four radiologists (with 20 years, 5 years, 2 years, and 1 year of experience) independently reviewed MRI findings. Resected specimens were reviewed by a gastrointestinal pathologist. Interreader agreement between the radiologists and pathologist was assessed using the Cohen κ statistic. Conditional sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the radiologists were calculated among patients for whom the radiologists and the pathologist agreed that the anal canal was involved. Results Thirty-two patients were included (mean age ± SD, 60 years ± 15; 19 male, 13 female). For the post-NAT assessment of anal sphincter involvement, agreement between readers 1, 2, and 4 and the pathologist was moderate (κ = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.91], 0.45 [95% CI: -0.06, 0.82], and 0.53 [95% CI: 0, 0.89], respectively). There was fair agreement between reader 3 and the pathologist (κ = 0.30 [95% CI: -0.09, 0.67]). Radiologists had high sensitivity for the detection of anal sphincter involvement (88%-100%), high PPV (88%-96%), and moderate to high specificity (50%-80%); the senior radiologist had the highest sensitivity, PPV, and specificity. Conclusion Radiologists had fair to moderate interreader agreement with the pathologist for post-NAT assessment of anal sphincter involvement in patients with rectal cancer and showed high conditional sensitivity regardless of their level of experience. Keywords: Abdomen/GI, Rectum, Oncology, Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy MRI Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2025.

新辅助治疗后MRI评估直肠癌患者肛门括约肌受累的准确性。
目的评价新辅助治疗(NAT)后磁共振成像(MRI)在直肠癌患者肛门括约肌受累情况判断中的准确性,并与病理评估相比较。材料和方法本回顾性研究纳入了2015年1月至2017年12月期间诊断为直肠癌的患者,其基线MRI显示肛门括约肌受损伤,然后接受了NAT, NAT后MRI和腹部会阴切除术。四名放射科医生(分别有20年、5年、2年和1年的经验)独立审查MRI结果。切除的标本由胃肠病理学家复查。使用Cohen κ统计量评估放射科医生和病理学家之间的解读一致性。计算放射科医生的条件敏感性、特异性和阳性预测值(PPV),这些患者的放射科医生和病理学家都同意涉及肛管。结果纳入32例患者(平均年龄±SD, 60岁±15岁;19名男性,13名女性)。对于nat后肛门括约肌受累程度的评估,读者1、2和4与病理学家之间的一致性为中等(κ分别= 0.55 [95% CI: 0.18, 0.91]、0.45 [95% CI: -0.06, 0.82]和0.53 [95% CI: 0, 0.89])。读者3和病理学家之间有相当的一致性(κ = 0.30 [95% CI: -0.09, 0.67])。放射科医师对肛门括约肌受累的检测灵敏度高(88% ~ 100%),PPV高(88% ~ 96%),中高特异性(50% ~ 80%);资深放射科医师的敏感性、PPV和特异性最高。结论:放射科医师对直肠癌患者肛门括约肌受损伤的nat后评估与病理学家的解读一致,无论其经验水平如何,都表现出较高的条件敏感性。关键词:腹部/胃肠道,直肠,肿瘤,新辅助治疗后MRI©rsna, 2025。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
2.30%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信