{"title":"MR staging of rectal cancer: Comparison between the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines","authors":"Piero Boraschi , Francescamaria Donati , Rosa Cervelli , Kathrine Bani , Riccardo Morganti , Niccolò Furbetta , Luca Morelli , Emanuele Neri","doi":"10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the adherence of the interpretation and reporting staging system, respectively proposed in the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) staging of rectal cancer, focusing on the improvement offered by the criteria introduced by 2016 ESGAR guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Fifty-six patients affected by rectal cancer were included; 25/56 patients underwent upfront surgery; 31 underwent to neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy before surgery. All patients underwent 3 T MRI examination for local staging. All MR exams were evaluated by two radiologists with 20- and 4-years’ experience, who were blinded to each other; the T and N stages, the Mesorectal Fascia (MRF) status and the Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI) were assessed according to both 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. The correlation between radiological and pathological findings, as well as the MRI staging were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>As to the expert reviewer, no significant differences were found by comparing the MR T and N stages, T and N restaging, MRF status and EMVI according to 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. As to the 4-years’ experience radiologist the MR staging agreement between 2012 and 2016 guidelines was “moderate” in N-stage evaluation and “fair” in T-restaging evaluation. No significant discrepancies were found for other parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>MRI is a reliable method in rectal cancer staging/restaging. The assessment of T-restaging is improved by adopting the 2016 ESGAR guidelines, especially for non-expert readers; this result could be justified by the introduction of diffusion-weighted imaging. On the contrary, the newest guidelines do not improve the diagnostic performance in assessing nodal staging and restaging.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12063,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 111804"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X24005205","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the adherence of the interpretation and reporting staging system, respectively proposed in the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) staging of rectal cancer, focusing on the improvement offered by the criteria introduced by 2016 ESGAR guidelines.
Method
Fifty-six patients affected by rectal cancer were included; 25/56 patients underwent upfront surgery; 31 underwent to neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy before surgery. All patients underwent 3 T MRI examination for local staging. All MR exams were evaluated by two radiologists with 20- and 4-years’ experience, who were blinded to each other; the T and N stages, the Mesorectal Fascia (MRF) status and the Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI) were assessed according to both 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. The correlation between radiological and pathological findings, as well as the MRI staging were evaluated.
Results
As to the expert reviewer, no significant differences were found by comparing the MR T and N stages, T and N restaging, MRF status and EMVI according to 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. As to the 4-years’ experience radiologist the MR staging agreement between 2012 and 2016 guidelines was “moderate” in N-stage evaluation and “fair” in T-restaging evaluation. No significant discrepancies were found for other parameters.
Conclusions
MRI is a reliable method in rectal cancer staging/restaging. The assessment of T-restaging is improved by adopting the 2016 ESGAR guidelines, especially for non-expert readers; this result could be justified by the introduction of diffusion-weighted imaging. On the contrary, the newest guidelines do not improve the diagnostic performance in assessing nodal staging and restaging.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Radiology is an international journal which aims to communicate to its readers, state-of-the-art information on imaging developments in the form of high quality original research articles and timely reviews on current developments in the field.
Its audience includes clinicians at all levels of training including radiology trainees, newly qualified imaging specialists and the experienced radiologist. Its aim is to inform efficient, appropriate and evidence-based imaging practice to the benefit of patients worldwide.