as it can alter management by detection of multifocal metastases [57–59]. In one study, the use of PET in preoperative staging of patients with RRC was identified as an independent predictor of overall survival after R0 resection [60]. However, the evidence supporting routine use of PET‐CT for evaluation of recurrent colorectal cancer is limited [61–63]. A meta‐analysis of the role of PET in staging patients with recurrent colorectal cancer found a pooled sensitivity and specificity for detection of distant metastases of 91 and 83% respectively, and 97 and 98% for detection of liver metastases alone [64]. However, there was significant heterogeneity among included studies. Overall, the consensus in many centers, including the authors of this chapter, is that PET‐CT should be used selectively in the following circumstances: to troubleshoot indeterminate findings from conventional imaging such as scar versus tumor in the postoperative pelvis or for assessment of borderline enlarged lymph nodes; to help exclude CT occult metastatic disease (for example bony and brain metastases) in patients with extensive malignancy or where a tumor is associated with poor prognostic features; and when assessing response of metastatic disease to chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
For liver metastases, MRI is the most accurate and preferred modality and also provides useful anatomical information regarding suitability for radiofrequency ablation or excision [61].
For peritoneal metastases, the main role of imaging is assessment of the number, volume, and distribution of peritoneal disease and extraperitoneal metastases. The Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) is the most widely used method of estimating the tumor burden [65–71]. However, CT consistently underestimates PCI [72], with only 11% sensitivity for nodules smaller than 0.5 mm [73]. Overall accuracy of CT for detection of peritoneal lesions in the nine abdomino‐pelvic regions has been estimated at 51–88% [74]. MRI has been shown to correctly predict surgical PCI in 91% of patients [72] and diffusion‐weighted MRI has a sensitivity and specificity of 90 and 95.5% respectively for depicting peritoneal metastases in gynecological malignancy [75]. In the authors’ experience, most “CT and MRI occult” metastases measuring 5 mm diameter or more are retrospectively visible on scan review and there is considerable interobserver variability when reporting peritoneal metastases.
Summary Box
Preoperative staging should address local tumor anatomy as well as systemic spread.
Preoperative staging of tumor anatomy should be aimed at maximizing the probability of R0 resection.
MRI‐based radiology, with selective additional use of ERUS, is the mainstay of assessment of tumor anatomy.
The roadmap approach to serial MRI provides detailed assessment of structures involved or threatened by tumor and of adjacent unaffected structures which will form the resection margin.
References
1 1 de Wilt, J.H., Vermaas, M., Ferenschild, F.T., and Verhoef, C. (2007). Management of locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 20: 255–263.
2 2 Warrier, S.K., Heriot, A.G., and Lynch, A.C. (2016). Surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer: tips, tricks, and pitfalls. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 29: 114–122.
3 3 Harji, D.P., Griffiths, B., McArthur, D.R., and Sagar, P.M. (2012). Current UK management of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Color. Dis. 14: 1479–1482.
4 4 Helewa, R.M. and Park, J. (2016). Surgery for locally advanced T4 rectal cancer: strategies and techniques. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 29: 106–113.
5 5 Brunschwig, A. (1948). Complete excision of pelvic viscera for advanced carcinoma; a one‐stage abdominoperineal operation with end colostomy and bilateral ureteral implantation into the colon above the colostomy. Cancer 1: 177–183.
6 6 Shaikh, I., Holloway, I., Aston, W. et al. (2016). High subcortical sacrectomy: a novel approach to facilitate complete resection of locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer with high (S1–S2) sacral extension. Color. Dis. 18: 386–392.
7 7 Milne, T., Solomon, M.J., Lee, P. et al. (2013). Assessing the impact of a sacral resection on morbidity and survival after extended radical surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Ann. Surg. 258: 1007–1013.
8 8 Melton, G.B., Paty, P.B., Boland, P.J. et al. (2006). Sacral resection for recurrent rectal cancer: analysis of morbidity and treatment results. Dis. Colon Rectum 49: 1099–1107.
9 9 Shaikh, I., Aston, W., Hellawell, G. et al. (2014). Extended lateral pelvic sidewall excision (ELSiE): an approach to optimize complete resection rates in locally advanced or recurrent anorectal cancer involving the pelvic sidewall. Tech. Coloproctol. 18: 1161–1168.
10 10 Shaikh, I.A. and Jenkins, J.T. (2017). Extended pelvic side wall excision for locally advanced rectal cancers. World J. Gastroenterol. 23: 8261–8262.
11 11 Solomon, M.J., Brown, K.G., Koh, C.E. et al. (2015). Lateral pelvic compartment excision during pelvic exenteration. Br. J. Surg. 102: 1710–1717.
12 12 Austin, K.K. and Solomon, M.J. (2009). Pelvic exenteration with en bloc iliac vessel resection for lateral pelvic wall involvement. Dis. Colon Rectum 52: 1223–1233.
13 13 Hockel, M. (2015). Long‐term experience with (laterally) extended endopelvic resection (LEER) in relapsed pelvic malignancies. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 17: 435.
14 14 Hockel, M. (2008). Laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) – principles and practice. Gynecol. Oncol. 111: S13–S17.
15 15 Solomon, M.J., Austin, K.K., Masya, L., and Lee, P. (2015). Pubic bone excision and perineal urethrectomy for radical anterior compartment excision during pelvic exenteration. Dis. Colon Rectum 58: 1114–1119.
16 16 Mehta, A.M., Hellawell, G., Burling, D. et al. (2018). Transperineal retropubic approach in total pelvic exenteration for advanced and recurrent colorectal and anal cancer involving the penile base: technique and outcomes. Tech. Coloproctol. 22: 663–671.
17 17 Bhangu, A., Ali, S.M., Brown, G. et al. (2014). Indications and outcome of pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Ann. Surg. 259: 315–322.
18 18 Heriot, A.G., Byrne, C.M., Lee, P. et al. (2008). Extended radical resection: the choice for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 51: 284–291.
19 19 Hansen, M.H., Balteskard, L., Dorum, L.M. et al. (2009). Locally recurrent rectal cancer in Norway. Br. J. Surg. 96: 1176–1182.
20 20 Nielsen, M.B., Rasmussen, P.C., Lindegaard, J.C., and Laurberg, S. (2012). A 10‐year experience of total pelvic exenteration for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer based on a prospective database. Color. Dis. 14: 1076–1083.
21 21 Bhangu, A., Ali, S.M., Darzi, A. et al. (2012). Meta‐analysis of survival based on resection margin status following surgery for recurrent rectal cancer. Color. Dis. 14: 1457–1466.
22 22 PelvEx Collaborative (2019). Surgical and survival outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary rectal cancer: results from an international collaboration. Ann. Surg. 269 (2): 315–321.
23 23 PelvEx Collaborative (2018). Factors affecting outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br. J. Surg. 105: 650–657.
24 24 Georgiou, P.A., Tekkis, P.P., and Brown, G. (2011). Pelvic colorectal recurrence: crucial role of radiologists in oncologic and surgical treatment options. Cancer Imaging 11: S103–S111.
