- Open Access
The importance of rectal cancer MRI protocols on iInterpretation accuracy
World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 6, Article number: 89 (2008)
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used for preoperative local staging in patients with rectal cancer. Our aim was to retrospectively study the effects of the imaging protocol on the staging accuracy.
Patients and methods
MR-examinations of 37 patients with locally advanced disease were divided into two groups; compliant and noncompliant, based on the imaging protocol, without knowledge of the histopathological results. A compliant rectal cancer imaging protocol was defined as including T2-weighted imaging in the sagittal and axial planes with supplementary coronal in low rectal tumors, alongside a high-resolution plane perpendicular to the rectum at the level of the primary tumor. Protocols not complying with these criteria were defined as noncompliant. Histopathological results were used as gold standard.
Compliant rectal imaging protocols showed significantly better correlation with histopathological results regarding assessment of anterior organ involvement (sensitivity and specificity rates in compliant group were 86% and 94%, respectively vs. 50% and 33% in the noncompliant group). Compliant imaging protocols also used statistically significantly smaller voxel sizes and fewer number of MR sequences than the noncompliant protocols
Appropriate MR imaging protocols enable more accurate local staging of locally advanced rectal tumors with less number of sequences and without intravenous gadolinium contrast agents.
Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment used for patients with primary rectal cancer. TME involves removal of a distinct anatomic compartment, the mesorectum, containing the rectal tumor, all local draining nodes and the mesorectal fat, by means of sharp dissection along the mesorectal fascia [1–3]. There is substantial evidence for efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy in combination with TME as being important to reduce local tumor recurrence rates [4–7]. When performing TME, knowledge of the relationship of the tumor to the circumferential resection margin (CRM) is of importance. When CRM is involved by the tumor, the risk of local recurrence is high [8–16]. The local prognostic factors assessed at preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of rectal cancer include the extent of extramural tumor spread, involvement of the lateral resection margin, involvement of neighboring organs in the pelvis, presence of local lymph node metastases, extramural lymphovascular infiltration and peritoneal involvement [15, 17]. This information helps select patients who should receive neoadjuvant treatment. This applies especially to cases with locally advanced rectal cancer, in order to maximize the chances of a complete resection and survival [18, 19], and at the same time, to minimize morbidity and loss of quality of life. It is therefore of paramount interest to provide detailed anatomic knowledge of tumor and tumor invasion toward neighboring organs before treatment.
Although evaluated in several studies during the past two decades, it is only during recent years that MRI gained wide acceptance as a valuable method for assessment in patients with rectal cancer [20–33].
As a tertiary referral center responsible for patients with advanced rectal cancer, we assess magnetic resonance (MR) examinations from other institutions and hospitals at multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. When demonstrating these examinations at MDT meetings, variations in imaging sequences among different centers are noted. These differences may be related to both different equipments and level of dedicated experience in pelvic MRI.
To our knowledge, no study has reported the importance of the imaging protocol for assessment of tumor involvement of neighboring organs in locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to compare the equivalence between MRI and histopathology in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer based on the effects of using different MRI protocols.
Patients and methods
Forty-one patients assessed as clinically suspicious for locally advanced primary rectal cancer by surgeons from 2000 to 2005, were included. 37 patients, 27 male and 10 female, with a mean age of 60.1 ± 9.8 (mean ± SD, range 28–79) who had available MRI of the pelvis were studied further. The surgeon's decision that a cancer might be advanced was based on findings at diagnostic laparotomy and/or by means of digital rectal examination.
All examinations were provided from ten different hospitals or institutions (two of which were university hospitals). Each MR examination (all done on 1.5 T) was assessed by two or three radiologists (C.T., M.R.T. and L.B.) in consensus without knowledge of the clinical and histopathological results prior to this study according to a standard evaluation looking specifically at which organs and/or structures had been involved. However, the radiologists were aware of the high suspicion for locally advanced tumors by the clinicians. Radiologists had evaluated the morphological characteristics of the primary tumor, local prognostic factors including threatening or involvement of the mesorectal fascia, and adjacent organs in each patient.
For the part of this study, anterior organs were defined as those positioned ventral to the rectum and included the seminal vesicles, the prostate gland, the perineal body, uterus, vagina, ovaries, the small and large intestines, and the urinary bladder. Inferior and posterior organs had been defined as those that were located inferior and dorsal to the rectum, respectively, and included the levator ani muscles, obturator muscles, piriformis muscles and the sacral bone. Involvement of the abovementioned organs was defined as T4-tumor stage.
The imaging protocol of each MR-examination was recorded by one author (C.T.). Those examinations that showed the following prerequisites were defined as compliant rectal imaging protocol vs. those that did not demonstrate the same sequences (called henceforth noncompliant):
Sagittal and axial T2-weighted images of the pelvis performed,
T2-weighted images with equal to or less than 3 mm slice thickness perpendicular to the rectal length at the level of the tumor with a 16–20 cm field of view and at least a 256 × 256 matrix, otherwise called 'high resolution imaging' [20, 21, 25, 34].
For low rectal tumors, coronal imaging obtained.
If the patients underwent MR examinations twice but at two different institutions, with different protocols, one compliant and the other non compliant; these were noted separately as combination protocol but categorized with the compliant group regarding some aspects. The number of other sequences and different types of artifacts (if distinguishable) were also noted.
The common denominators of all MR examinations, whether compliant or otherwise, were that they had to be performed on the request of a surgeon or oncologist for assessment of local extension of the rectal tumor preoperatively, and that the radiologist at the primary institution had not called the examination incomplete.
All evaluations were performed according to the protocol of Quirke, et al [16, 35], by one pathologist (J.L.) with more than 10 years of experience in gastrointestinal pathology. The pathologist was blinded to the MRI study protocol. The tumor site was sliced transversely at 0.5–1.0-cm intervals. The extent of tumor spread into mesorectal fascia and other structures or organs was assessed both macroscopically and with high magnification. Tumor extension into the surrounding structures and organs at microscopical examination were used as the standard of reference against which MRI findings were compared. The extension of tumor cells into mesorectal fascia and other structures or organs was assessed from inspection of the histological macrosection by light microscopy at 20× – 200× magnification.
All MRI findings including the size of tumor, the name and number of involved fascia(e) and organ(s), the pattern of tumor involvement according to MRI and histopathology as well as the MR imaging protocol were recorded using Microsoft Excel 2003 and Microsoft Access 2000. Sensitivity and specificity of MRI between different groups were compared and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated with P-value < 0.05 considered significant using Stat View J-5.0 (SAS Institute. Inc., Cary, NC).
The study was approved by the local ethical committee. No separate informed consent was obtained for this retrospective study.
Tumor staging according to MRI
Nineteen patients were evaluated as T4 rectal tumors based on MRI. The remaining 18 were evaluated as T3 tumors without obvious invasion of neighboring organ.
Assessment of imaging quality
Eleven patients were assessed as having compliant (D) protocols and 13 patients as combination protocols (C) and 13 patients a noncompliant imaging (N).
Regarding imaging parameters, compliant imaging protocols were used with smaller field of view (FOV) (D, 201.7 ± 77.0 mm; N, 263.5 ± 129.8 mm; mean ± SD, p = 0.03), thinner slice thickness (D, 3.8 ± 1.4 mm; N, 5.3 ± 1.9 mm; mean ± SD, p < 0.01), smaller slice gap (D, 0.2 ± 0.9 mm; N 2.0 ± 2.4 mm; mean ± SD, p < 0.01) and smaller voxel size (D, 1.3 ± 1.5 mm3; N, 6.7 ± 6.0 mm3; mean ± SD, p < 0.01). The total number of MR sequences performed in each patient was also larger in the N group (N, 9.2 ± 3.2 sequences vs. D, 5.2 ± 0.7 sequences; mean ± SD, p < 0.01 (table 1). One patient from the noncompliant group had some motion artifacts.
Involvement of the anterior organs
In the group with compliant protocols and the group with combination protocol, preoperative MRI indicated tumor involvement of anterior pelvic organs in seven out of the 24 patients. Compared to pathological examination, six cases were true positives and one was false positive. Among the remaining 17 patients without organ involvement on MRI, pathological examination revealed one false negative case and 16 true negatives (table 2). Figure 1 demonstrates the false-negative case. In this case, there appears to be no continuity between the tumor and the uterus. However, histopathological examination showed tumor invasion along the fascia, reaching the posterior wall of the uterus and the left adnexa. The radiologist failed to ascertain the anterior extension of the tumor correctly.
In the noncompliant imaging group, preoperative MRI was indicative of organ involvement in eight cases. Pathological examination revealed two as true positives and six as false positives (Figure 2). Among the remaining five patients without organ involvement, pathological examination revealed two false negatives and three true negatives.
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) in the compliant and combination protocol group were 85.7%, 94.1%, 85.7%, and 94.1%, respectively. On the other hand, in the group with non-compliant protocol, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 50.0%, 33.3%, 25.0%, and 60%, respectively. Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed regarding measured specificity (95% CI; 7–70 for group N vs. 95% CI; 71–99 for the other two groups, D and C). The difference in sensitivity in the two groups did not reach statistical significance levels (Table 2).
Posterior or inferior organ involvement
Only three out of the present 19 patients with locally advanced tumor, showed involvement of an inferior organ (levator ani muscle, piriformis muscle) or a posterior organ (Os sacrum) by the tumor, without simultaneous involvement of any anterior organ. Two of these patients used compliant imaging, and pathological examination revealed both to be true positives. In one patient with noncompliant imaging an inferior organ involvement was suspected but pathological examination proved no obvious tumor infiltration or fibrosis in that organ (false-positive). The number of cases was too few to make any meaningful statistical analysis.
The results of this study indicate considerable differences in correlation between preoperative imaging and histopathology depending on the imaging protocol. Using compliant imaging, despite fewer imaging sequences, a considerably better prediction of tumor invasion towards anterior pelvic organs is seen. On the contrary, this study also indicates that MRI performed with noncompliant imaging protocol does not allow accurate prediction. One other observation is that the radiologist tends to over-stage when the imaging protocol is not optimal. This could be due to the fear of positive resection margins caused by a false negative assessment and partial volume effect observed with thick slices not obtained in the appropriate planes. This could of course be due to nature of the study as well. The radiologists assessing the MR exams were aware of the selection criteria and might have felt compelled to over-stage.
The lack of compliant imaging, and as we suspect the lack of high resolution T2-weighted imaging, probably forced the radiologists to rely on images with considerable volume averaging. Compared to the compliant imaging, both slice thickness including gap and voxel size were significantly larger in the noncompliant imaging group (P < 0.05). Larger slice thickness and gap yield more partial volume effect, thus leading the radiologists to make overestimation of tumor extent. In areas of the pelvis where there are small interfaces between tissues, such as in the anterior and low part of the rectum, this is probably of particular importance. In the compliant and combination groups, there was one false positive and one false negative finding of anterior organ involvement out of 24 cases.
In the noncompliant imaging group, there were six false positive and two false negative cases out of 13 cases. This means that one patient out of 24 from D and C groups and six patients out of 13 from the N group might receive unnecessary extensive surgery and prolonged, preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Anterior pelvic organs are closely related to urinary and sexual function, and anterior organ surgery has great impact on the patient's quality of life after surgery. By contrast at least partially because of false negative assessments by radiologists, one out of 24 cases from D and C groups, and two out of 13 cases from the N group had involved resection margins.
Although the low number of cases prohibits any meaningful analysis to be done regarding accuracy of MRI for assessment of organs inferior or dorsal to rectum, our findings suggest that compliant imaging might be superior to noncompliant imaging also for these patients. This low frequency could be due to less likelihood of involvement of posterior organs compared to anterior organs due to more distance between rectum and these neighboring organs .
The number of MR sequences was different between various groups with larger numbers observed in the noncompliant imaging group. It seems that whenever the compliant sequences were not employed, there was a tendency to conduct several other sequences. One of the most widely used sequences in the N group was the one with usage of gadolinium intravenous contrast. Recently, Vliegen and others have shown that gadolinium-enhanced MRI does not improve the diagnostic accuracy in local staging of rectal cancer . Unnecessary use of contrast agents might only lead to increased rate of adverse events and increased costs and time needed for examination, without any proven benefit for the patients.
There are a number of other limitations in this study. First, we did not compare the same patients using different imaging protocols.
Second, there was a difference in the sensitivity of MR examinations using different protocols when assessing detection of anterior organ involvement, however, the difference did not reach statistical significance which is probably due to the low power of the study and perhaps the nature of the study (i.e. the radiologists knew that these cases were more likely to be advanced cases).
However, even with these limitations, the compliant imaging improves accuracy, especially in advanced and complicated cases. It is therefore of utmost importance that radiologists are made aware of pitfalls and the problems, and that radiologist are made up-to-date about recent developments in imaging. This current study reveals that there is a need for continued education in this field.
For local staging of locally advanced rectal cancer, the correlation between MRI and histopathology was better when a predefined compliant rectal imaging protocol was used. It is possible that this also holds true for all patients assessed with rectal cancer and not only for anterior structures in the pelvis. However, this has to be assessed in further studies. Furthermore, this study indicates that continuous training of radiologists and radiology technicians, including work-shops and seminars seems to be an appropriate way to improve accuracy of MRI in patients with rectal cancer.
Magnetic resonance (imaging)
Total mesorectal excision
Circumferential resection margin
- T2-w (image):
T2 weighted (image)
Field of view
Positive predictive value
Negative predictive value
number of excitations.
Enker WE: Potency, cure, and local control in the operative treatment of rectal cancer. Arch Surg. 1992, 127: 1396-1401. discussion 1402
Heald RJ: Total mesorectal excision is optimal surgery for rectal cancer: a Scandinavian consensus. Br J Surg. 1995, 82: 1297-1299.
Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD: The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery – the clue to pelvic recurrence?. Br J Surg. 1982, 69: 613-616.
Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Westerheim O, Mala T, Lunde OC: Local recurrence after mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2002, 28: 126-134.
Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Putter H, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Rutten HJ, Pahlman L, Glimelius B, van Krieken JH: Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001, 345: 638-646.
Martling A, Holm T, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B: The Stockholm II trial on preoperative radiotherapy in rectal carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a population-based study. Cancer. 2001, 92: 896-902.
MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ: Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1993, 341: 457-460.
Wibe A, Rendedal PR, Svensson E, Norstein J, Eide TJ, Myrvold HE, Soreide O: Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2002, 89: 327-334.
Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, Velde van de CJ, van Krieken JH: Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002, 26: 350-357.
Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, Parsons W, Dixon MF, Mapstone NP, Abbott CR, Scott N, Finan PJ, Johnston D, Quirke P: Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2002, 235: 449-457.
Hall NR, Finan PJ, al-Jaberi T, Tsang CS, Brown SR, Dixon MF, Quirke P: Circumferential margin involvement after mesorectal excision of rectal cancer with curative intent. Predictor of survival but not local recurrence?. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998, 41: 979-983.
de Haas-Kock DF, Baeten CG, Jager JJ, Langendijk JA, Schouten LJ, Volovics A, Arends JW: Prognostic significance of radial margins of clearance in rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1996, 83: 781-785.
Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, Scott N, Finan PJ, Johnston D, Dixon MF, Quirke P: Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet. 1994, 344: 707-711.
Ng IO, Luk IS, Yuen ST, Lau PW, Pritchett CJ, Ng M, Poon GP, Ho J: Surgical lateral clearance in resected rectal carcinomas. A multivariate analysis of clinicopathologic features. Cancer. 1993, 71: 1972-1976.
Cawthorn SJ, Parums DV, Gibbs NM, A'Hern RP, Caffarey SM, Broughton CI, Marks CG: Extent of mesorectal spread and involvement of lateral resection margin as prognostic factors after surgery for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1990, 335: 1055-1059.
Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS: Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet. 1986, 2: 996-999.
Lindmark G, Gerdin B, Pahlman L, Bergstrom R, Glimelius B: Prognostic predictors in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994, 37: 1219-1227.
Sagar PM, Pemberton JH: Surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1996, 83: 293-304.
Poeze M, Houbiers JG, Velde van de CJ, Wobbes T, von Meyenfeldt MF: Radical resection of locally advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1995, 82: 1386-1390.
Brown G, Daniels IR: Preoperative staging of rectal cancer: the MERCURY research project. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2005, 165: 58-74.
Brown G, Kirkham A, Williams GT, Bourne M, Radcliffe AG, Sayman J, Newell R, Sinnatamby C, Heald RJ: High-resolution MRI of the anatomy important in total mesorectal excision of the rectum. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004, 182: 431-439.
Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL: Rectal cancer: how accurate can imaging predict the T stage and the circumferential resection margin?. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2003, 18: 385-391.
Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL: Rectal cancer: review with emphasis on MR imaging. Radiology. 2004, 232: 335-346.
Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, Vliegen RF, Kessels AG, Van Boven H, De Bruine A, von Meyenfeldt MF, Baeten CG, van Engelshoven JM: Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of tumour-free resection margin in rectal cancer surgery. Lancet. 2001, 357: 497-504.
Brown G, Richards CJ, Newcombe RG, Dallimore NS, Radcliffe AG, Carey DP, Bourne MW, Williams GT: Rectal carcinoma: thin-section MR imaging for staging in 28 patients. Radiology. 1999, 211: 215-222.
Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, Hoop van der AG, Borstlap AC, van Boven H, Rongen MJ, Baeten CG, van Engelshoven JM: High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the anorectal region without an endocoil. Abdom Imaging. 1999, 24: 576-581. discussion 582-574
Hadfield MB, Nicholson AA, MacDonald AW, Farouk R, Lee PW, Duthie GS, Monson JR: Preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma by magnetic resonance imaging with a pelvic phased-array coil. Br J Surg. 1997, 84: 529-531.
Blomqvist L, Holm T, Rubio C, Hindmarsh T: Rectal tumours – MR imaging with endorectal and/or phased-array coils, and histopathological staging on giant sections. A comparative study. Acta Radiol. 1997, 38: 437-444.
Blomqvist L, Holm T, Goranson H, Jacobsson H, Ohlsen H, Larsson SA: MR imaging, CT and CEA scintigraphy in the diagnosis of local recurrence of rectal carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 1996, 37: 779-784.
Okizuka H, Sugimura K, Ishida T: Preoperative local staging of rectal carcinoma with MR imaging and a rectal balloon. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993, 3: 329-335.
de Lange EE, Fechner RE, Wanebo HJ: Suspected recurrent rectosigmoid carcinoma after abdominoperineal resection: MR imaging and histopathologic findings. Radiology. 1989, 170: 323-328.
Hodgman CG, MacCarty RL, Wolff BG, May GR, Berquist TH, Sheedy PF, Beart RW, Spencer RJ: Preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma by computed tomography and 0.15T magnetic resonance imaging. Preliminary report. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986, 29: 446-450.
Butch RJ, Stark DD, Wittenberg J, Tepper JE, Saini S, Simeone JF, Mueller PR, Ferrucci JT: Staging rectal cancer by MR and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1986, 146: 1155-1160.
Brown G, Daniels IR, Richardson C, Revell P, Peppercorn D, Bourne M: Techniques and trouble-shooting in high spatial resolution thin slice MRI for rectal cancer. Br J Radiol. 2005, 78: 245-251.
Quirke P, Dixon MF: The prediction of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma by histopathological examination. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1988, 3: 127-131.
Torkzad MR, Blomqvist L: The mesorectum: morphometric assessment with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2005, 15: 1184-1191.
Vliegen RF, Beets GL, von Meyenfeldt MF, Kessels AG, Lemaire EE, van Engelshoven JM, Beets-Tan RG: Rectal cancer: MR imaging in local staging – is gadolinium-based contrast material helpful?. Radiology. 2005, 234: 179-188.
The authors wish to thank Roberto Vargas, R.T. for his outstanding technical support and knowledge of MRI and all the colleagues the in Department of the Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna.
This study is supported partially by ALF project funding, Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institute.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
CS idea, data collection, radiological assessment, manuscript preparation. MT idea, data collection, radiological assessment, manuscript preparation. ST idea, data collection, surgical and clinical assessment, histopathological evaluation, manuscript preparation. GP idea, data collection, surgical and clinical assessment, manuscript preparation. TH idea, data collection, surgical and clinical assessment, histopathological evaluation, manuscript preparation. JL idea, data collection, histopathological evaluation, manuscript preparation. LB idea, supervision, manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final version
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Suzuki, C., Torkzad, M.R., Tanaka, S. et al. The importance of rectal cancer MRI protocols on iInterpretation accuracy. World J Surg Onc 6, 89 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-6-89
- Rectal Cancer
- Total Mesorectal Excision
- Imaging Protocol
- Circumferential Resection Margin
- Advanced Rectal Cancer