Advertisement

Der Radiologe

, Volume 59, Issue 9, pp 820–827 | Cite as

Rationales Staging und Follow-up beim kolorektalen Karzinom

Helfen Leitlinien weiter?
  • M. S. JuchemsEmail author
  • J. Wessling
Leitthema
  • 69 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Klinisches/methodisches Problem

Das kolorektale Karzinom ist eines der häufigsten malignen Tumoren. Die präoperative Bildgebung ist beim Rektumkarzinom entscheidend, da die Patienten nur bei akkuratem Staging einem optimalen Behandlungskonzept zugeführt werden können. Das N‑Staging gestaltet sich oft schwierig und muss als Staging-Parameter infrage gestellt werden.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

Für das lokale Staging eignen sich der endorektale Ultraschall (EUS) und die Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT). Die multiparametrische MRT samt Diffusionsbildgebung ist bei der Tumornachsorge unverzichtbar.

Methodische Innovationen

Mittels hochauflösender MRT gelingt die Beurteilung der Infiltration der mesorektalen Faszie am besten. Als weiterer wichtiger prognostischer Faktor hat sich zudem die extramurale Gefäßinfiltration (EMVI) etabliert. Nach neoadjuvanter Therapie und Restaging des lokal fortgeschrittenen Rektumkarzinoms steht die Identifizierung und Validierung prognostisch relevanter Bildparameter im Vordergrund. Die multiparametrische MRT des Rektums inklusive Diffusionsbildgebung sowie die Anwendung radiologisch-pathologischer Scores (MR-TRG) spielen hier eine bedeutende Rolle.

Bewertung

Für den Radiologen ist es wichtig, sich mit Indikatoren der Resektabilität des Rektumkarzinoms vertraut zu machen und prognostisch relevante Bildparameter in der Tumornachsorge sicher lesen zu können.

Empfehlung für die Praxis

Für die praktische Anwendung ist die Etablierung eines festen MRT-Protokolls unerlässlich. Neben der leitliniengerechten TNM-Klassifizierung muss der Radiologe dem Kliniker auch Informationen über die Infiltration der mesorektalen Faszie und der extramurale Gefäßinfiltration vermitteln. In der Tumornachsorge gewinnen radiologisch-pathologischen Scores (MR-TRG) zunehmend an Bedeutung.

Schlüsselwörter

Rektumkarzinom Bildgebung Leitlinie Magnetresonanztomographie Computertomographie 

Rational staging and follow-up of colorectal cancer

Do guidelines provide further help?

Abstract

Clinical/methodical issue

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors. Preoperative imaging is crucial in rectal cancer as patients can only receive optimal treatment when accurate staging is performed. The N‑staging is often difficult with the available options and must be called into question as a staging parameter.

Standard radiological methods

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are particularly suitable for local staging. Multiparametric MRI with diffusion imaging is indispensable for tumor follow-up.

Methodical innovations

The assessment of infiltration of the mesorectal fascia is best accomplished using high-resolution MRI. In addition, extramural vascular infiltration (EMVI) has become established as another important prognostic factor. After neoadjuvant therapy and restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer, the identification and validation of prognostically relevant image parameters are prioritized. Multiparametric MRI of the rectum including diffusion imaging as well as the application of radiological and pathological scores (MR-TRG) are becoming increasingly more important in this context.

Assessment

For the radiologist it is important to become familiar with indicators of the resectability of rectal cancer and to be able to reliably read prognostically relevant imaging parameters in the tumor follow-up.

Practical recommendations

For the practical application, the establishment of a fixed MRI protocol is essential. In addition to a guideline-compliant TNM classification, the radiologist must provide the clinician with information on infiltration of the mesorectal fascia and extramural vascular infiltration. The MR-TRGs are becoming increasingly more important in tumor follow-up.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Imaging Guidelines Magnetic resonance imaging Computed tomography 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

M.S. Juchems und J. Wessling geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Bertz J, Hentschel S, Hundsdörfer G et al (2004) Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bevölkerungsbezogener Krebsregister in Deutschland, S 28–31Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Reddy JB et al (2009) How good is endoscopic ultrasound in differentiating various T stages of rectal cancer? Meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 16(2):254–265.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0231-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindmark GE, Kraaz WG, Elvin PA et al (1997) Rectal cancer: evaluation of staging with endosonography. Radiology 204:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al (2002) Routine use of transrectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma: results of a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 34:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harewood GC (2005) Assessment of publication bias in the reporting of EUS performance in staging rectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 100:808–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Juchems MS, Ernst AS, Kornmann M et al (2009) Value of MDCT in preoperative local staging of rectal cancer for predicting the necessity for neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Rofo 181:1168–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim NK, Kim MJ, Yun SH et al (1999) Comparative study of transrectal ultrasonography, pelvic computerized tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 42:770–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ward J, Robinson PJ, Guthrie JA et al (2005) Liver metastases in candidates for hepatic resection: comparison of helical CT and gadolinium- and SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 237:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P et al (2004) Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 240:1027–1034 (discussion 1035–1026)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim CK, Kim SH, Choi D et al (2007) Comparison between 3‑T magnetic resonance imaging and multi-detector row computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of rectal cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:853–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, Vliegen RF et al (2001) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of tumour-free resection margin in rectal cancer surgery. Lancet 357:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poon FW, Mcdonald A, Anderson JH et al (2005) Accuracy of thin section magnetic resonance using phased-array pelvic coil in predicting the T‑staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Radiol 53:256–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glynne-Jones R, Tan D, Goh V (2014) Pelvic MRI for guiding treatment decisions in rectal cancer. Oncology (Williston Park, NY) 28:667–677Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Will O, Purkayastha S, Chan C et al (2006) Diagnostic precision of nanoparticle-enhanced MRI for lymph-node metastases: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 7:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heijnen LA, Lambregts DM, Mondal D et al (2013) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in primary rectal cancer staging demonstrates but does not characterise lymph nodes. Eur Radiol 23:3354–3360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang H, Zhang C, Zheng Z et al (2017) Chemical shift effect predicting lymph node status in rectal cancer using high-resolution MR imaging with node-for-node matched histopathological validation. Eur Radiol 27:3845–3855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ et al (2011) Preoperative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging can identify good prognosis stage I, II, and III rectal cancer best managed by surgery alone: a prospective, multicenter, European study. Ann Surg 253:711–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor FG, Quirke P, Heald RJ et al (2014) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging assessment of circumferential resection margin predicts disease-free survival and local recurrence: 5‑year follow-up results of the MERCURY study. J Clin Oncol 32:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siddiqui MRS, Simillis C, Hunter C et al (2017) A meta-analysis comparing the risk of metastases in patients with rectal cancer and MRI-detected extramural vascular invasion (mrEMVI) vs mrEMVI-negative cases. Br J Cancer 116:1513–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sohn B, Lim JS, Kim H et al (2015) MRI-detected extramural vascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor for synchronous metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 25:1347–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DK, Awmf) (2019) S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom, Kurzversion 2.1. http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Leitlinien/Kolorektales-Karzinom/ (Awmf Registrierungsnummer: 021/007ol)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glynne-Jones R, Wyrwicz L, Tiret E et al (2017) Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 28:iv22–iv40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Körner H, Söreide K, Stokkeland PJ et al (2005) Systematic follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in Norway: a population-based audit of effectiveness, costs, and compliance. J Gastrointest Surg 9:320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wichmann MW, Müller C, Hornung HM et al (2002) Results of long-term follow-up after curative resection of Dukes A colorectal cancer. World J Surg 26:732–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merkel S, Meyer T, Göhl J et al (2002) Late locoregional recurrence in rectal carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 28:716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bülow S, Christensen IJ, Harling H et al (2003) Recurrence and survival after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 90:974–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berman JM, Cheung RJ, Weinberg DS (2000) Surveillance after colorectal cancer resection. Lancet 355:395–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mäkelä JT, Laitinen SO, Kairaluoma MI (1995) Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 130:1062–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hünerbein M, Totkas S, Moesta KT et al (2001) The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in the postoperative follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. Surgery 129:164–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitry E, Guiu B, Cosconea S et al (2010) Epidemiology, management and prognosis of colorectal cancer with lung metastases: a 30-year population-based study. Gut 59:1383–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schoemaker D, Black R, Giles L et al (1998) Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5‑year survival of colorectal cancer patients. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 114:7–14Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pietra N, Sarli L, Costi R et al (1998) Role of follow-up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 41:1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jeffery GM, Hickey BE, Hider P (2002) Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD2200Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 124:544–560Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sobhani I, Tiret E, Lebtahi R et al (2008) Early detection of recurrence by 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 98:875–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Selvaggi F, Cuocolo A, Sciaudone G et al (2003) FGD-PET in the follow-up of recurrent colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 5:496–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maas M, Beets-Tan RG et al (2011) Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:4633–4640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pucciarelli S, De Paoli A et al (2013) Local excision after preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: results of a Multicenter phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 56:1349–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wietek BM (2012) KraTT t: Aktuelle MRT-Diagnostik des Rektumkarzinoms. Rofo 184(11):992–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kochhar R, Renehan AG, Mullan D, Chakrabarty B, Saunders MP, Carrington BM (2017) The assessment of local response using magnetic resonance imaging at 3‑ and 6‑month post chemoradiotherapy in patients with anal cancer. Eur Radiol 27(2):607–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shihab OC, Taylor F, Salerno G, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ et al (2011) MRI predictive factors for long-term outcomes of low rectal tumours. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3278–3284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bhoday J, Smith F, Siddiqui MR, Balyasnikova S, Swift RI, Perez R, Habr-Gama A, Brown G (2016) Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade and residual mucosal abnormality as predictors for pathological complete response in rectal cancer postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum 59:925–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Birlik B, Obuz F, Elibol FD, Celik AO, Sokmen S, Terzi C et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted MRI and MR—volumetry—in the evaluation of tumor response after preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 33(2):201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lambregts DM, Maas M, Riedl RG, Bakers FC, Verwoerd JL, Kessels AG et al (2011) Value of ADC measurements for nodal staging after chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer—a per lesion validation study. Eur Radiol 21(2):265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gollub MJ, Blazic I, Felder S, Knezevic A, Gonen M, Garcia-Aguilar J, Paty PP, Smith JJ (2019) Value of adding dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI visual assessment to conventional MRI and clinical assessment in the diagnosis of complete tumour response to chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 29(3):1104–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    De Cecco CN, Ganeshan B, Ciolina M, Rengo M, Meinel FG, Musio D et al (2015) Texture analysis as imaging biomarker of tumoral response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients studied with 3‑T magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol 50(4):239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Diagnostische und Interventionelle RadiologieKlinikum KonstanzKonstanzDeutschland
  2. 2.Zentrum für Radiologie, Neuroradiologie und NuklearmedizinClemenshospital MünsterMünsterDeutschland

Personalised recommendations