The split scar sign as an indicator of sustained complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer
- 208 Downloads
To measure the diagnostic performance of a new radiologic pattern on restaging magnetic resonance (MR) high-resolution T2-weighted imaging (T2-WI)—the split scar sign—for the identification of sustained complete response (SCR) after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.
Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study and the informed consent requirement was waived. Fifty-eight consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy were enrolled. Two radiologists blindly and independently reviewed restaging pelvic MR imaging and recorded the presence/absence of the split scar sign (mrSSS). On a second round, they also assessed the relative proportion of intermediate signal intensity on T2-WI (mrT2) and of high signal intensity on high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (mrDWI). Endoscopic response grading records were retrieved. Qui-square test was employed in search for associations between SCR, defined as pathologic complete response or long-term recurrence-free clinical follow-up, and mrSSS, mrT2, mrDWI and endoscopy. Interobserver agreement for imaging parameters was estimated using Cohen’s kappa (k).
mrSSS was significantly associated with SCR, with specificity = 0.97/0.97, sensitivity = 0.52/0.64, PPV = 0.93/0.94, NPV = 0.73/0.78, and AuROC = 0.78/0.83, for observers 1/2, respectively. mrDWI was significantly associated with SCR for observer 2, with specificity = 0.76, sensitivity = 0.60, PPV = 0.65, NPV = 0.71, and AuROC = 0.69. mrT2 and endoscopy were not discriminative. Interobserver agreement was substantial for mrSSS (k = 0.69), moderate for mrDWI (k = 0.46), and poor for mrT2 (k = 0.17).
The split scar sign is a simple morphologic pattern visible on restaging T2-WI which, although not sensitive, is very specific for the identification of sustained complete responders after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.
• The split scar sign is a morphologic pattern visible on high-resolution T2-weighted MR imaging in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy. It therefore does not require any changes to standard protocol.
• At first restaging pelvic MR imaging (mean: 9.1 weeks after the end of radiotherapy), the split scar sign identified patients who sustained a complete response with very high specificity (0.97) and positive predictive value (0.93–0.94).
• The split scar sign has the potential to improve patient selection for “watch-and-wait” after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.
KeywordsRectal neoplasms Neoadjuvant therapy Watchful waiting Magnetic resonance imaging
Relative proportion of high signal intensity on high b-value diffusion-weighted images (≤ 25% vs > 25%)
Split scar sign
Relative proportion of intermediate signal intensity on T2-WI (≤ 25% vs > 25%)
Sustained complete response
The authors would like to thank all personnel from the Radiology Department and all personnel from the Digestive Unit of the Champalimaud Foundation.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding and is in compliance with ethical standards.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Richard J. Heald, MD, CBE, MChir, FRCS.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise, and no complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• This is a retrospective
• cross sectional study
- 3.Chiappa A, Bertani E, Ferrari C, Venturino M, Andreoni B (2014) The impact of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer on survival. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(11):S97Google Scholar
- 22.Beets GL, Figueiredo NL, Habr-Gama A, van de Velde CJ (2015) A new paradigm for rectal cancer: organ preservation: Introducing the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD). Eur J Surg Oncol 41(12):1562–1564Google Scholar
- 25.Sclafani F, Brown G, Cunningham D et al (2017) Comparison between MRI and pathology in the assessment of tumor regression grade in rectal cancer. Br J Cancer 21:1–8Google Scholar
- 26.Song I, Kim SH, Lee SJ, Choi JY, Kim MJ, Rhim H (2012) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of viable tumor after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: comparison with T2 weighted and PET/CT imaging. Br J Radiol 85:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Lambregts DMJ, Delli Pizzi A, Lahaye M et al (2018) A pattern-based approach combining tumor morphology on mri with distinct signal patterns on diffusion-weighted imaging to assess response of rectal tumors after chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum 61(3):328–337Google Scholar
- 31.Smith FM, Chang KH, Sheahan K, Hyland J, O'Connell PR, Winter DC (2012) The surgical significance of residual mucosal abnormalities in rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Br J Surg 99:993–1001Google Scholar
- 33.van der Sande ME, Beets GL, Hupkens BJ et al (2018) Response assessment after (chemo)radiotherapy for rectal cancer: why are we missing complete responses with MRI and endoscopy? Eur J Surg Oncol S0748-7983(18):32017–32011Google Scholar
- 35.van der Valk MJM, Hilling DE, Bastiaannet E et al (2018) Long-term outcomes of clinical complete responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD): an international multicenter registry study. Lancet 391(10139):2537–2545Google Scholar