Magnetic Resonance of Rectal Cancer Response to Therapy: An Image Quality Comparison between 3.0 and 1.5 Tesla.

Purpose: To evaluate signal intensity (SI) differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T on T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in rectal cancer pre-, during, and postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Materials And Methods: 22 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent T2w, DWI, and ADC pre-, during, and post-CRT on both 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. A radiologist drew regions of interest (ROIs) of the tumor and obturator internus muscle on the selected slice to evaluate SI and relative SI (rSI). Additionally, a subanalysis evaluating the SI before and after-CRT (SI pre-post) in complete responder patients (CR) and nonresponder patients (NR) on T2w, DWI, and ADC was performed.

Results: Significant differences were observed for T2w and DWI on 3.0 T MRI compared to 1.5 T MRI pre-, during, and post-CRT (all < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were reported for ADC among all controls (all > 0.05). rSI showed no significant differences in all the examinations for all sequences (all > 0.05). SI showed significant differences between 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI for DWI-SI in CR and NR (188.39 ± 166.90 vs. 30.45 ± 21.73 and 169.70 ± 121.87 vs. 22.00 ± 31.29, respectively, all 0.02) and ADC-SI for CR (-0.58 ± 0.27 vs. -0.21 ± 0.24 value 0.02), while no significant differences were observed for ADC-SI in NR and both CR and NR for T2w-SI.

Conclusion: T2w-SI and DWI-SI showed significant differences for 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T in all three controls, while ADCSI showed no significant differences in all three controls on both field strengths. rSI was comparable for 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in rectal cancer patients; therefore, rectal cancer patients can be assessed both at 3.0 T MRI and 1.5 T MRI. However, a significant DWI-SI and ADC-∆SI on 3.0 T in CR might be interpreted as a better visual assessment in discriminating response to therapy compared to 1.5 T. Further investigations should be performed to confirm future possible clinical application.