Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology 2023; 06(02): 138-147
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768486
Original Article

MRI Staging of Anorectal Malignancy—A Reporting Dilemma: Is It Adenocarcinoma or Squamous Cell Carcinoma?

Anuradha Chandramohan 
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Kirthi Sathyakumar
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Antony Augustine
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Reetu John
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Betty Simon
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Rijo Issac
2   Department of Pathology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Dipti Masih
2   Department of Pathology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Jeba Karunya
3   Department of Radiation Oncology I, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Thomas S. Ram
3   Department of Radiation Oncology I, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Ashish Singh
4   Department of Medical Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Mark Ranjan Jesudason
5   Department of Colorectal Surgery, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Rohin Mittal
5   Department of Colorectal Surgery, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of anorectal malignancy is often reported assuming low rectal adenocarcinoma (LRC). The biopsy may, however, reveal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Thus, the aim was to compare the imaging findings of SCC and LRC.

Methods This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent staging MRI for anorectal malignancy (<5 cm from the anal verge) for adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma between 2016 and 2021. Two radiologists blinded to biopsy reviewed MRI. Imaging findings and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were compared between SCC and LRC.

Results We studied 137 patients (n = 60 SCC, n = 77 LRC) with a mean age of 50.4 (standard deviation: 12.4) years and tumor length of 5.6 ± 1.9 cm. SCC patients were older, and their distal tumor margin was closer to the anal verge (5.3 vs. 22 mm for LRC; p <0.001). T2 intermediate signal and diffusion restriction was seen in 97 and 98.2% of SCC and 75.3 and 77% of LRC, respectively. SCC had lower ADC values (0.910 × 10−3 mm2/s) than LRC (1.126 × 10−3 mm2/s; p < 0.001). But there was no difference in the ADC values when T2 hyperintense tumors were excluded (p = 0.132). Extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) was more frequent in LRC (35.1 vs. 16.7%; p = 0.013). A combination of distance from the anal verge of less than 11 mm, absent EMVI, and the presence of internal iliac and inguinal nodes had an area under the curve (95% confidence interval) of 0.810 (0.737–0.884).

Conclusion ADC values are unhelpful in differentiating SCC and LRC. Tumors closer to anal verge, absence of EMVI, and the presence of inguinal and internal-iliac nodes may point towards SCC.

Keywords

squamous cell carcinoma - low rectal cancer - adenocarcinoma - anorectal malignancy - anal cancer - MRI

Abbreviation

LRC – low rectal cancer


SCC – squamous cell carcinoma


CRT – chemoradiotherapy


APE - abdominoperineal excision


ELAPE - extra-levator APE


TME – total mesorectal excision


p-CRM - pathological CRM


MMC - mitomycin C (MMC) and


5-FU - 5-fluorouracil


Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. IRB Min No. 14621, 27.04.2022. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.


Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to institutional data protection policies but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


Authors' Contributions

Anuradha Chandramohan conceptualized and designed the study. Anuradha Chandramohan, Kirthi Sathyakumar, and Antony Augustine contributed to literature research and manuscript preparation. Anuradha Chandramohan, Kirthi Sathyakumar, Antony Augustine, Mark Rajan Jesudason, Rohin Mittal, Jeba Karunya, Thomas S. Ram, and Ashish Singh helped in clinical studies. Reka K was involved experimental studies/data analysis and statistical analysis. Anuradha Chandramohan, Kirthi Sathyakumar, Antony Augustine, Reetu John, Betty Simon, Rijo Issac, Dipti Masih, Jeba Karunya, Thomas S Ram, Ashish Singh, Mark R Jesudason, and Rohin Mittal edited the manuscript. Anuradha Chandramohan and Rohin Mittal are guarantor of integrity of the entire study.




Publication History

Article published online:
24 April 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Maas M. et al. 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 2018; 28 (04) 1465-1475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Grulich AE, Poynten IM, Machalek DA, Jin F, Templeton DJ, Hillman RJ. The epidemiology of anal cancer. Sex Health 2012; 9 (06) 504-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol 2019; 14 (02) 89-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ahadi M, Sokolova A, Brown I, Chou A, Gill AJ. The 2019 World Health Organization Classification of appendiceal, colorectal and anal canal tumours: an update and critical assessment. Pathology 2021; 53 (04) 454-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Durot C, Dohan A, Boudiaf M, Servois V, Soyer P, Hoeffel C. Cancer of the anal canal: diagnosis, staging and follow-up with MRI. Korean J Radiol 2017; 18 (06) 946-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Min LA, Vacher YJL, Dewit L. et al. Gross tumour volume delineation in anal cancer on T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI - Reproducibility between radiologists and radiation oncologists and impact of reader experience level and DWI image quality. Radiother Oncol 2020; 150: 81-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kochhar R, Plumb AA, Carrington BM, Saunders M. Imaging of anal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (03) W335-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Goh V, Gollub FK, Liaw J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal before and after chemoradiation: can MRI predict for eventual clinical outcome?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 78 (03) 715-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Torkzad MR, Kamel I, Halappa VG, Beets-Tan RGH. Magnetic resonance imaging of rectal and anal cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2014; 22 (01) 85-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Koh DM, Dzik-Jurasz A, O'Neill B, Tait D, Husband JE, Brown G. Pelvic phased-array MR imaging of anal carcinoma before and after chemoradiation. Br J Radiol 2008; 81 (962): 91-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Granata V, Fusco R, Reginelli A. et al. Radiological assessment of anal cancer: an overview and update. Infect Agent Cancer 2016; 11 (01) 52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Prezzi D, Mandegaran R, Gourtsoyianni S. et al. The impact of MRI sequence on tumour staging and gross tumour volume delineation in squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (04) 1512-1519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Surabhi VR, Menias CO, Amer AM. et al. Tumors and tumorlike conditions of the anal canal and perianal region: MR imaging findings. Radiographics 2016; 36 (05) 1339-1353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tonolini M, Bianco R. MRI and CT of anal carcinoma: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2013; 4 (01) 53-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cattapan K, Chulroek T, Wancharoenrung D, Kordbacheh H, Harisinghani M. Can MR imaging be useful in differentiating low rectal cancer from anal cancer?. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44 (02) 438-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chandramohan A, Siddiqi UM, Mittal R. et al. Diffusion weighted imaging improves diagnostic ability of MRI for determining complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur J Radiol Open 2020; 7: 100223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB. et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67 (02) 93-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sørensen CG, Karlsson WK, Pommergaard H-C, Burcharth J, Rosenberg J. The diagnostic accuracy of carcinoembryonic antigen to detect colorectal cancer recurrence - a systematic review. Int J Surg 2016; 25: 134-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Matalon SA, Mamon HJ, Fuchs CS. et al. Anorectal cancer: critical anatomic and staging distinctions that affect use of radiation therapy. Radiographics 2015; 35 (07) 2090-2107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (06) 1471-1474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Battersby NJ, How P, Moran B. et al; MERCURY II Study Group. Prospective validation of a low rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging staging system and development of a local recurrence risk stratification model: the MERCURY II study. Ann Surg 2016; 263 (04) 751-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Glynne-Jones R, Wyrwicz L, Tiret E. et al; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2017; 28 (suppl_4): iv22-iv40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chand M, Siddiqui MR, Swift I, Brown G. Systematic review of prognostic importance of extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22 (04) 1721-1726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lord AC, D'Souza N, Shaw A. et al. MRI-diagnosed tumor deposits and EMVI status have superior prognostic accuracy to current clinical TNM staging in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2022; 276 (02) 334-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chandramohan A, Mittal R, Dsouza R. et al. Prognostic significance of MR identified EMVI, tumour deposits, mesorectal nodes and pelvic side wall disease in locally advanced rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2022; 24 (04) 428-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar