Standardised reports with a template format are superior to free text reports: the case for rectal cancer reporting in clinical practice

Purpose: Rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows accurate assessment and preoperative staging of rectal cancers. Therefore, complete MRI reports are vital to treatment planning. Significant variability may exist in their content and completeness. Template-style reporting can improve reporting standards, but its use is not widespread. Given the implications for treatment, we have evaluated current clinical practice amongst specialist gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists to measure the quality of rectal cancer staging MRI reports. Materials and methods: Sixteen United Kingdom (UK) colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary teams (CRC-MDTs) serving a population over 5 million were invited to submit up to 10 consecutive rectal cancer primary staging MRI reports from January 2016 for each radiologist participating in the CRC-MDT. Reports were compared to a reference standard based on recognised staging and prognostic factors influencing case management Results: Four hundred ten primary staging reports were submitted from 41 of 42 (97.6%) eligible radiologists. Three hundred sixty reports met the inclusion criteria, of these, 81 (22.5%) used a template. Template report usage significantly increased recording of key data points versus non-template reports for extra-mural venous invasion (EMVI) status (98.8% v 51.6%, p < 0.01) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status (96.3% v 65.9%, p < 0.01). Local tumour stage (97.5% v 93.5%, NS) and nodal status (98.8% v 96.1%, NS) were reported and with similar frequency. Conclusion: Rectal cancer primary staging reports do not meet published standards. Template-style reports have significant increases in the inclusion of key tumour descriptors. This study provides further support for their use to improve reporting standards and outcomes in rectal cancer

MRI for Local Staging of Colon Cancer: Can MRI Become the Optimal Staging Modality for Patients With Colon Cancer?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of MRI for local staging of colon cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at the Maastricht University Medical Centre. PATIENTS: In total, 55 patients with biopsy-proven colon carcinoma were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All of the patients underwent an MRI (1.5-tesla; T2 and diffusion-weighted imaging) of the abdomen and were retrospectively analyzed by 2 blinded, independent readers. Histopathology after resection was the reference standard. Both readers evaluated tumor characteristics, including invasion through bowel wall (T3/T4 tumors), invasion beyond bowel wall of >=5 mm and/or invasion of surrounding organs (T3cd/T4), serosal involvement, extramural vascular invasion, and malignant lymph nodes (N+). Interobserver agreement was compared using [kappa] statistics. RESULTS: MRI had a high sensitivity (72%–91%) and specificity (84%–89%) in detecting T3/T4 tumors (35/55) and a low sensitivity (43%–67%) and high specificity (75%–88%) in detecting T3cd/T4 tumors (15/55). For detecting serosal involvement and extramural vascular invasion, MRI had a high sensitivity and moderate specificity, as well as a moderate sensitivity and specificity in the detection of nodal involvement. Interobserver agreements were predominantly good; the more experienced reader achieved better results in the majority of these categories. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective nature and moderate number of inclusions. CONCLUSIONS: MRI has a good sensitivity for tumor invasion through the bowel wall, extramural vascular invasion, and serosal involvement. In addition, together with its superior liver imaging, MRI might become the optimal staging modality for colon cancer. However, more research is needed to confirm this

Response assessment after (chemo)radiotherapy for rectal cancer: Why are we missing complete responses with MRI and endoscopy?

Purpose To evaluate what features on restaging MRI and endoscopy led to a false clinical diagnosis of residual tumour in patients with a pathological complete response after rectal cancer surgery. Methods Patients with an unrecognized complete response after (chemo)radiotherapy were selected in a tertiary referral centre for rectal cancer treatment. An unrecognized complete response was defined as a clinical incomplete response at MRI and/or endoscopy with a pathological complete response of the primary tumour after surgery. The morphology of the tumour bed and the lymph nodes were evaluated on post-CRT T2-weighted MRI (T2-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI). Post-CRT endoscopy images were evaluated for residual mucosal abnormalities. MRI and endoscopy features were correlated with histopathology. Results Thirty-six patients with an unrecognized complete response were included. Mucosal abnormalities were present at restaging endoscopy in 84%, mixed signal intensity on T2-MRI in 53%, an irregular aspect of the former tumour location on T2-MRI in 69%, diffusion restriction on DWI in 51% and suspicious lymph nodes in 25%. Conclusions Overstaging of residual tumour after (chemo)radiotherapy in rectal cancer is mainly due to residual mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy, mixed signal intensity or irregular fibrosis at T2-MRI, diffusion restriction at DWI and residual suspicious lymph nodes. Presence of these features is not definitely associated with residual tumour and in selected cases an extended waiting interval can be considered

Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus

Objectives: To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them. Methods: A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists. Results: Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. Conclusions: The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting. Key Points: • Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. • These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting

Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting

OBJECTIVES: To update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. METHODS: Fourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate' (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template. CONCLUSIONS: These updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. KEY POINTS: • These guidelines present recommendations for staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 pelvic imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by the experts for 92 % of the 246 items discussed. • Practical guidelines for nodal staging are proposed. • A structured reporting template is presented

Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Selection of Complete Responders After Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study

PURPOSE: In 10-24% of patients with rectal cancer who are treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation, no residual tumor is found after surgery (ypT0). When accurately selected, these complete responders might be considered for less invasive treatments instead of standard surgery. So far, no imaging method has proven reliable. This study was designed to assess the accuracy of diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in addition to standard rectal MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from three university hospitals underwent chemoradiation followed by a restaging MRI (1.5T), consisting of standard T2W-MRI and DWI (b0-1000). Three independent readers first scored the standard MRI only for the likelihood of a complete response using a 5-point confidence score, after which the DWI images were added and the scoring was repeated. Histology (ypT0 vs. ypT1-4) was the standard reference. Diagnostic performance for selection of complete responders and interobserver agreement were compared for the two readings. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 120 patients had a complete response (ypT0). Areas under the ROC-curve for the three readers improved from 0.76, 0.68, and 0.58, using only standard MRI, to 0.8, 0.8, and 0.78 after addition of DWI (P = 0.39, 0.02, and 0.002). Sensitivity for selection of complete responders ranged from 0-40% on standard MRI versus 52-64% after addition of DWI. Specificity was equally high (89-98%) for both reading sessions. Interobserver agreement improved from kappa 0.2-0.32 on standard MRI to 0.51-0.55 after addition of DWI. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DWI to standard rectal MRI improves the selection of complete responders after chemoradiation

Radiologist and multidisciplinary team clinician opinions on the quality of MRI rectal cancer staging reports: how are we doing?

AIM To evaluate the current opinion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports amongst specialist clinicians involved in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary teams (CRC MDTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS Active participants at 16 UK CRC MDTs across a population of 5.7 million were invited to complete a questionnaire, this included 22 closed and three open questions. Closed questions used ordinal (Likert) scales to judge the subjective inclusion of tumour descriptors and impressions on the clarity and consistency of the MRI report. Open (free-text) questions allowed overall feedback and suggestions. RESULTS A total of 69 participants completed the survey (21 radiologists and 48 other CRC MDT clinicians). Both groups highlighted that reports commonly omit the status of the circumferential resection margin (CRM; 83% versus 81% inclusion, other clinicians and radiologists, respectively, p>0.05), presence or absence of extra-mural venous invasion (EMVI; 67% versus 57% inclusion, p>0.05), and lymph node status (90% inclusion in both groups). Intra-radiologist agreement across MRI examinations is reported as 75% by other clinicians. Free-text comments included suggestions for template-style reports. CONCLUSION Both groups recognise a proportion of MRI reports are suboptimal with key tumour descriptors omitted. There are also concerns around the presentation style of MRI reports and inter- and intra-radiologist report variability. The widespread implementation of standardised report templates may improve completeness and clarity of MRI reports for rectal cancer and thus clinical management and outcomes in rectal cancer

Evaluation of tumour response after radiotherapy in rectal cancer

The current interest in organ preservation and the watch-and-wait approach has renewed the interest to assess the response after (chemo)radiation, with the goal to identify patients with a complete or very good response. The most accurate identification is achieved with a combination of digital rectal examination, endoscopy and MRI. At present there is little evidence for a role for EUS and PET, and the role of a biopsy is unclear. The detection of small islands of tumour cells in the radiotherapy-induced fibrosis remains difficult with any technique. When the goal is to increase the number of patients who can avoid a major rectal resection, patients with a very good response can be selected for a prolonged observation period with a second assessment 8-12 weeks later. This allows for a better healing of the bowel wall, and a better identification of a complete response. A key element in this approach is to involve the patient in the decision-making process