دورية أكاديمية
Split scar sign to predict complete response in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
| العنوان: | Split scar sign to predict complete response in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Torri GB; Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University Hospital of Santa Maria, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande Do Sul, 97105-900, Brazil., Wiethan CP; Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University Hospital of Santa Maria, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande Do Sul, 97105-900, Brazil., Langer FW; Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University Hospital of Santa Maria, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Rio Grande Do Sul, 97105-900, Brazil., de Oliveira GS; Clinics Hospital of Porto Alegre, R. Ramiro Barcelos, Porto Alegre, 235090035903, Brazil., Meirelles AVB; Clinics Hospital, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Prof. Alfredo Balena, 110 - Santa Efigênia, Belo Horizonte, 30130-100, Brazil., Horvat N; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA., Tse JR; Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5105, USA., Dias AB; Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, 263 McCaul Street, 4Th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 1W7, Canada., Altmayer S; Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5105, USA. altmayer@stanford.edu. |
| المصدر: | European radiology [Eur Radiol] 2024 Jun; Vol. 34 (6), pp. 3874-3881. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Nov 18. |
| نوع المنشور: | Journal Article; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Springer International Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 9114774 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1432-1084 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09387994 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Eur Radiol Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Original Publication: Berlin : Springer International, c1991- |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Rectal Neoplasms*/therapy , Rectal Neoplasms*/diagnostic imaging , Rectal Neoplasms*/pathology , Neoadjuvant Therapy*/methods , Magnetic Resonance Imaging*/methods, Humans ; Cicatrix/diagnostic imaging ; Chemoradiotherapy/methods ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Treatment Outcome |
| مستخلص: | Objectives: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the modality of choice for rectal cancer initial staging and restaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the split scar sign (SSS) on rectal MRI in predicting complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant published studies through June 2023. Primary studies met eligibility criteria if they evaluated the diagnostic performance of the SSS to predict complete response on pathology or clinical follow-up in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the SSS. Results: A total of 4 studies comprising 377 patients met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of complete response in the studies was 21.7-52.5%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the SSS to predict complete response were 62.0% (95% CI, 43.5-78.5%) and 91.9% (95% CI, 78.9-97.2%), respectively. The estimated AUC for SSS was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.56-0.94) with a DOR of 18.8 (95% CI, 3.65-96.5). Conclusion: The presence of SSS on rectal MRI demonstrated high specificity for complete response in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. This imaging pattern can be a valuable tool to identify potential candidates for organ-sparing treatment and surveillance. Clinical Relevance Statement: SSS presents high specificity for complete response post-neoadjuvant. This MRI finding enhances rectal cancer treatment assessment and aids clinicians and patients in choosing watch-and-wait over immediate surgery, which can potentially reduce costs and associated morbidity. Key Points: •Fifteen to 50% of rectal cancer patients achieve complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and may be eligible for a watch-and-wait strategy. •The split scar sign has high specificity for a complete response. •This imaging finding is valuable to select candidates for organ-sparing management. (© 2024. The Author(s).) |
| التعليقات: | Comment in: Eur Radiol. 2024 Jun;34(6):3872-3873. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10537-y. (PMID: 38133679) Erratum in: Eur Radiol. 2024 Aug;34(8):5501. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10576-5. (PMID: 38240808) |
| References: | Mattiuzzi C, Sanchis-Gomar F, Lippi G (2019) Concise update on colorectal cancer epidemiology. Ann Transl Med 7:609. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.07.91. (PMID: 10.21037/atm.2019.07.91320477707011596) Horvat N, El Homsi M, Miranda J et al (2023) Rectal MRI interpretation after neoadjuvant therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 57:353–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28426. (PMID: 10.1002/jmri.2842636073323) Santiago I, Barata M, Figueiredo N et al (2020) The split scar sign as an indicator of sustained complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 30:224–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06348-9. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-019-06348-931350587) Liu H, Zeng Z, Zhang H et al (2023) Morbidity, mortality, and pathologic outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer short-term outcomes from a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 277:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005523. (PMID: 10.1097/SLA.000000000000552335815886) Habr-Gama A, Perez RO, Nadalin W et al (2004) Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy. Ann Surg 240:711–718. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000141194.27992.32. (PMID: 10.1097/01.sla.0000141194.27992.32153837981356472) Garcia-Aguilar J, Patil S, Gollub MJ et al (2022) Organ preservation in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated with total neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 40:2546–2556. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00032. (PMID: 10.1200/JCO.22.00032354830109362876) Santiago I, Rodrigues B, Barata M et al (2021) Re-staging and follow-up of rectal cancer patients with MR imaging when “watch-and-wait” is an option: a practical guide. Insights Imaging 12:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01055-w. (PMID: 10.1186/s13244-021-01055-w343739618353037) Yuval JB, Garcia-Aguilar J (2021) Watch-and-wait management for rectal cancer after clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. Adv Surg 55:89–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yasu.2021.05.007. (PMID: 10.1016/j.yasu.2021.05.007343891028803266) Popita A-R, Lisencu C, Rusu A et al (2022) MRI evaluation of complete and near-complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Diagnostics (Basel) 12:921. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12040921. (PMID: 10.3390/diagnostics1204092135453969) Yuan Y, Zheng K, Zhou L et al (2023) Predictive value of modified MRI-based split scar sign (mrSSS) score for pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for patients with rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 38:40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-023-04330-y. (PMID: 10.1007/s00384-023-04330-y36790595) El Khababi N, Beets-Tan RGH, Tissier R et al (2022) Comparison of MRI response evaluation methods in rectal cancer: a multicentre and multireader validation study. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09342-w. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-022-09342-w36576549) Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.n71337820578005924) Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, Takwoingi Y (2023) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 2.0. Cochrane, 2023. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook-diagnostic-test-accuracy/current. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T et al (2007) Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 7:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-7-16. (PMID: 10.1186/1472-6947-7-16175739611904193) Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. (PMID: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-0000922007046) Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 22:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117. (PMID: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-3001173156386510231495) Noma H, Matsushima Y, Ishii R (2021) Confidence interval for the AUC of SROC curve and some related methods using bootstrap for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Communications in Statistics: Case Studies, Data Analysis and Applications 7:344–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2021.1894408. (PMID: 10.1080/23737484.2021.1894408) Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS et al (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.02216168343) Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH et al (2003) The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00177-x. (PMID: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00177-x14615004) Devillé WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM et al (2002) Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-9. (PMID: 10.1186/1471-2288-2-912097142117243) Yu G, Lu W, Jiao Z et al (2021) A meta-analysis of the watch-and-wait strategy versus total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer exhibiting complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. World J Surg Oncol 19:305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-021-02415-y. (PMID: 10.1186/s12957-021-02415-y346633418522111) Dossa F, Chesney TR, Acuna SA, Baxter NN (2017) A watch-and-wait approach for locally advanced rectal cancer after a clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30074-2. (PMID: 10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30074-228479372) Hope TA, Gollub MJ, Arya S et al (2019) Rectal cancer lexicon: consensus statement from the society of abdominal radiology rectal & anal cancer disease-focused panel. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44:3508–3517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02170-5. (PMID: 10.1007/s00261-019-02170-5313886976824987) Patel UB, Taylor F, Blomqvist L et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging–detected tumor response for locally advanced rectal cancer predicts survival outcomes: MERCURY experience. J Clin Oncol 29:3753–3760. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.34.9068. (PMID: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.906821876084) Jang JK, Choi SH, Park SH et al (2020) MR tumor regression grade for pathological complete response in rectal cancer post neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis for accuracy. Eur Radiol 30:2312–2323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06565-2. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-019-06565-231953656) Park SH, Cho SH, Choi SH et al (2020) MRI assessment of complete response to preoperative chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer: 2020 guide for practice from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology. Korean J Radiol 21:812–828. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0483. (PMID: 10.3348/kjr.2020.0483325247827289703) Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Maas M et al (2018) 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 28:1465–1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-017-5026-229043428) Gollub MJ, Arya S, Beets-Tan RG et al (2018) Use of magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer patients: Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) rectal cancer disease-focused panel (DFP) recommendations 2017. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:2893–2902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1642-9. (PMID: 10.1007/s00261-018-1642-929785540) van Griethuysen JJM, Bus EM, Hauptmann M et al (2018) Gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on diffusion-weighted MRI of the rectum at 1.5 T - effect of applying a micro-enema to improve image quality. Eur J Radiol 99:131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.020. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.02029362144) Martens MH, Maas M, Heijnen LA et al (2016) Long-term outcome of an organ preservation program after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 108:171. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw171. (PMID: 10.1093/jnci/djw171) |
| معلومات مُعتمدة: | P30 CA008748 United States CA NCI NIH HHS |
| فهرسة مساهمة: | Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; Rectal neoplasms; Split scar sign; Watchful waiting |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20231118 Date Completed: 20240611 Latest Revision: 20240731 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20240731 |
| مُعرف محوري في PubMed: | PMC11166750 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00330-023-10447-z |
| PMID: | 37979009 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Find this article in full text from Springer Verlag. 
Full Text Finder | تدمد: | 1432-1084 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00330-023-10447-z |