Should the Baseline MRI Staging Criteria Differentiate Between Mucinous and Classical Rectal Adenocarcinoma?

Rationale and Objectives: To compare baseline MR imaging features for pre-treatment staging between rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma (RMAC) and rectal classical adenocarcinoma (RCAC), and to investigate whether the subtype of mucinous carcinoma influences MRI evaluation criteria and high-risk tumors identifying.
Methods: A total of 306 patients who underwent surgical rectal cancer resection were retrospectively reviewed in the study. MR imaging parameters of the primary tumor and lymph nodes (LNs) were compared between two subtypes. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to test significant associations between LN imaging parameters and malignant LN status in RMAC and RCAC, respectively.
Results: The length of mucinous tumors was larger than RCAC tumors in pT3 and pT4 stage. For pN0 patients, the long and short diameters of the largest LN on MRI were more likely to be larger in RCAC than RMAC. For pN+ patients, the proportion of LNs exhibiting internal heterogeneity in RMAC was obviously greater than that in RCAC. The best cut-off value of the largest short diameter of malignant LNs was 6.05 mm for RMAC and 8.05 mm for RCAC. And the highest AUC for predicting LNs metastases based on the largest short diameter was 0.794 for RMAC using 6 mm size cut-off, and 0.667 for RCAC using 8 mm cut-off.
Conclusion: The imaging features that were associated with LN metastases were different between RMAC and RCAC, and different size criteria of LNs was suggested to distinguish high-risk tumors. Clinicians should stay vigilant of LN status and take histologic subtypes into consideration before assigning clinical strategies.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)