Extracellular volume fraction determined by equilibrium contrast-enhanced CT for the prediction of the pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Yuesheng Luo,Leilei Liu,Daihong Liu,Hesong Shen,Xiaoxia Wang,Chunbo Fan,Zhen Zeng,Jing Zhang,Yong Tan,Xiaoyue Zhang,Jiaxing Wu,Jiuquan Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09307-z
Abstract:Objectives: To determine the extracellular volume (ECV) fraction derived from equilibrium contrast-enhanced CT for predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Methods: The ECV fraction before NCRT (ECVpre) and/or ECV after NCRT (ECVpost) of rectal tumors was assessed, and ECVΔ was calculated as ECVpost - ECVpre. The histopathologic tumor regression grading (TRG) was assessed. pCR (TRG 0 grade) was defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the primary tumor and lymph nodes. Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics and ECV fraction were compared between the pCR and non-pCR groups. A mixed model was constructed by logistic regression. The performance for predicting pCR was assessed with the area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC). The AUCs of the different methods were compared by the method proposed by DeLong et al. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included; 17 achieved pCR, and 58 achieved non-pCR. The ECVpost (17.05 ± 2.36% vs. 29.94 ± 1.20%; p < 0.001) and ECVΔ (- 17.01 ± 3.01% vs. 0.44 ± 1.45%; p < 0.001) values in the pCR group were significantly lower than those in the non-pCR group. The mixed model that combined ECVpost with ECVΔ achieved an AUC of 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.81-0.98), which was higher than that of ECVpost (AUC, 0.91 (95% CI = 0.80-0.97); p = 0.60) or ECVΔ (AUC, 0.90 (95% CI = 0.79-0.97); p = 0.61). Conclusions: ECVpost and ECVΔ determined by using equilibrium contrast-enhanced CT were useful in distinguishing between pCR and non-pCR patients with LARC who received NCRT. Key points: • ECVpost and ECVΔ (ECVpost - ECVpre) differed significantly between the non-pCR and pCR groups. • ECVpre cannot be used to predict the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. • ECVpost combined with ECVΔ had the best performance with an AUC of 0.92 for predicting pCR after NCRT in LARC.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?