Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer patients: Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) rectal cancer disease-focused panel (DFP) recommendations 2017

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To propose guidelines based on an expert-panel-derived unified approach to the technical performance, interpretation, and reporting of MRI for baseline and post-treatment staging of rectal carcinoma.

Methods

A consensus-based questionnaire adopted with permission and modified from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiologists was sent to a 17-member expert panel from the Rectal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology containing 268 question parts. Consensus on an answer was defined as ≥ 70% agreement. Answers not reaching consensus (< 70%) were noted.

Results

Consensus was reached for 87% of items from which recommendations regarding patient preparation, technical performance, pulse sequence acquisition, and criteria for MRI assessment at initial staging and restaging exams and for MRI reporting were constructed.

Conclusion

These expert consensus recommendations can be used as guidelines for primary and post-treatment staging of rectal cancer using MRI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Valentini V, Aristei C, Glimelius B, et al. (2009) Multidisciplinary rectal cancer management: 2nd european rectal cancer consensus conference (EURECA-CC2). Radiother Oncol 92(2):148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.06.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Glimelius B, Pahlman L, Cervantes A (2010) Rectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v82–v86. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lahaye MJ, Engelen SM, Nelemans PJ, et al. (2005) Imaging for predicting the risk factors–the circumferential resection margin and nodal disease-of local recurrence in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 26(4):259–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maas M, Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM, et al. (2011) Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(35):4633–4640. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.37.7176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lezoche G, Baldarelli M, Guerrieri M, et al. (2008) A prospective randomized study with a 5-year minimum follow-up evaluation of transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant therapy. Surg Endosc 22(2):352–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9596-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Habr-Gama A, Gama-Rodrigues J, Sao Juliao GP, et al. (2014) Local recurrence after complete clinical response and watch and wait in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: impact of salvage therapy on local disease control. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88(4):822–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.12.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martens MH, Maas M, Heijnen LA, et al. (2016) Long-term outcome of an organ preservation program after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst . https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Appelt AL, Ploen J, Harling H, et al. (2015) High-dose chemoradiotherapy and watchful waiting for distal rectal cancer: a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 16(8):919–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00120-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Mass M, et al. (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients: recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol 23(9):2522–2531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2864-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Mass M, et al. (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol 28(4):1465–1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cascade PN (2000) The American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria project. Radiology 214(Suppl):3–46. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja5510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kahn CE, Heilbrun ME, Applegate KE (2013) From guidelines to practice: how reporting templates promote the use of radiology practice guidelines. J Am Coll Radiol 10(4):268–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.09.025

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Sukhni E, Messenger DE, Charles Victor J, McLeod RS, Kennedy ED (2013) Do MRI reports contain adequate preoperative staging information for end users to Make appropriate treatment decisions for rectal cancer? Ann Surg Oncol 20(4):1148–1155. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2738-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. Am J Roentgenol 205(3):584–588. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Norenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, et al. (2017) Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Investig Radiol 52(4):232–239. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dobranowski J (2015) Structured reporting in cancer imaging: reaching the quality dimension in communication. HealthManagement 15(4):268–271

    Google Scholar 

  17. Al-Sukhni E, Milto L, Fruitman M, Brown G, Schmocker S, Kennedy E (2014) MR Rectal Tumour.

  18. Cancer KSGfR (2017) Essential items for structured reporting of rectal cancer MRI: 2016 consensus recommendation from the korean society of abdominal radiology. Korean J Radiol 18(1):132–151. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.1.132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maas M, Lambregts DM, Nelemans PJ, et al. (2015) Assessment of clinical complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer with digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI: selection for organ-saving treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 22(12):3873–3880. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Martens MH, Maas M, Heijnen LA, et al. (2016) Long-term outcome of an organ preservation program after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. JNCI 108(12):dwj171. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown G, Richards CJ, Newcombe RG, et al. (1999) Rectal carcinoma: thin-section MR imaging for staging in 28 patients. Radiology 211(1):215–222. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap35215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hugen N, van de Velde CJ, Bosch SL, et al. (2015) Modern treatment of rectal cancer closes the gap between common adenocarcinoma and mucinous carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 22(8):2669–2676. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4339-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oberholzer K, Menig M, Kreft A, et al. (2012) Rectal cancer: mucinous carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging indicates poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(2):842–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.08.057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chand M, Yu S, Swift RI, Brown G (2014) Mucinous carcinoma of the rectum: a distinct clinicopathological entity. Tech Coloproctol 18(4):335–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1099-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, van de Velde CJ, van Krieken JH (2002) Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol 26(3):350–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sassen S, de Booij M, Sosef M, et al. (2013) Locally advanced rectal cancer: is diffusion weighted MRI helpful for the identification of complete responders (ypT0N0) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy? Eur Radiol 23(12):3440–3449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2956-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lahaye MJ, Beets GL, Engelen SME, et al. (2009) Locally advanced rectal cancer: MR imaging for restaging after neoadjuvant radiation therapy with concomitant chemotherapy part II. What are the criteria to predict involved lymph nodes? Radiology 252(1):81–91. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2521081364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heijnen LA, Maas M, Beets-Tan RG, et al. (2016) Nodal staging in rectal cancer: why is restaging after chemoradiation more accurate than primary nodal staging? Int J Colorectal Dis 31(6):1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2576-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Perez RO, Pereira DD, Proscurshim I, et al. (2009) Lymph node size in rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation–can we rely on radiologic nodal staging after chemoradiation? Dis Colon Rectum 52(7):1278–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a0af4b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Helmer-Hirschberg O (1967) Analysis of the future: the Delphi method. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, p 11

    Google Scholar 

  31. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al. (2014) Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 67(4):401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, et al. (2004) Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging–a meta-analysis. Radiology 232(3):773–783. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323031368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Marone P, de Bellis M, D’Angelo V, et al. (2015) Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the loco-regional staging of patients with rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Endosc 7(7):688–701. https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v7.i7.688

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Li XT, Zhang XY, Sun YS, Tang L, Cao K (2016) Evaluating rectal tumor staging with magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and endoluminal ultrasound: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(44):e5333. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim SH, Lee JM, Hong SH, et al. (2009) Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy. Radiology 253(1):116–125. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2532090027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lambregts DM, Vandecaveye V, Barbaro B, et al. (2011) Diffusion-weighted MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 18(8):2224–2231. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1607-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Song I, Kim SH, Lee SJ, et al. (2012) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of viable tumour after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: comparison with T2 weighted and PET/CT imaging. Br J Radiol 85(1013):577–586. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/68424021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. van der Paardt MP, Zagers MB, Beets-Tan RG, Stoker J, Bipat S (2013) Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 269(1):101–112. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Maas M, Lambregts DMJ, Lahaye MJ, et al. (2012) T-staging of rectal cancer: accuracy of 3.0 Tesla MRI compared with 1.5 Tesla. Abdom Imaging 37(3):475–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-011-9770-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Saremi F, Jalili M, Sefidbakht S, et al. (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3 T: image quality comparison with 1.5-T magnet using 3 different imaging sequences. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35(3):317–325. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e318213ccb0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Slater A, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Marshall M (2006) Distance between the rectal wall and mesorectal fascia measured by MRI: effect of rectal distension and implications for preoperative prediction of a tumour-free circumferential resection margin. Clin Radiol 61(1):65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2005.08.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dal Lago A, Minetti AE, Biondetti P, Corsetti M, Basilisco G (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the rectum during distension. Dis Colon Rectum 48(6):1220–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0933-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Van Griethuysen JJM, Bus, E., Hauptmann, M. et al. (2017) Air artefacts on diffusion-weighted MRI of the rectum: effect of applying a rectal micro-enema. Insights into Imaging ECR 2017—BOOK OF ABSTRACTS 8(1):S187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-017-0546-5

  44. Lim C, Quon J, McInnes M, et al. (2015) Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging 42(3):689–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim SH, Lee JY, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI (2011) Apparent diffusion coefficient for evaluating tumour response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 21(5):987–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1989-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Palmucci S, Piccoli M, Piana S, et al. (2017) Diffusion MRI for rectal cancer staging: aDC measurements before and after ultrasonographic gel lumen distension. Eur J Radiol 86:119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.11.017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ye F, Zhang H, Liang X, et al. (2016) JOURNAL CLUB: preoperative MRI evaluation of primary rectal cancer: Intrasubject comparison with and without rectal distention. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(1):32–39. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.15.15383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Stijns RCH STJ, de Wilt JHW, Fütterer JJ, Beets-Tan RGH (2018) The influence of endorectal filling on rectal cancer staging with MRI. Br J Radiol

  49. Shihab OC, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Brown G (2009) MRI staging of low rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 19(3):643–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1184-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. van der Pol CB, Shabana WM, McInnes MD, Schieda N (2015) High-resolution T2-weighted (T2W) oblique plane turbo spin-echo (TSE) MRI for rectal adenocarcinoma staging. Clin Imaging 39(4):627–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.01.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Scala D, Niglio A, Pace U, et al. (2016) Laparoscopic intersphincteric resection: indications and results. Updates Surg 68(1):85–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-016-0351-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Staderini F, Foppa C, Minuzzo A, et al. (2016) Robotic rectal surgery: state of the art. World J Gastrointest Oncol 8(11):757–771. https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v8.i11.757

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Ramage L, McLean P, Simillis C, et al. (2018) Functional outcomes with handsewn versus stapled anastomoses in the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer. Updates Surg . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-017-0507-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Gollub MJ, Gultekin DH, Akin O, et al. (2012) Dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI for the detection of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 22(4):821–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2321-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tong T, Sun Y, Gollub MJ, et al. (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: use in predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 42(3):673–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24835

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Martens MH, Subhani S, Heijnen LA, et al. (2015) Can perfusion MRI predict response to preoperative treatment in rectal cancer? Radiother Oncol 114(2):218–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kim SH, Lee JM, Gupta SN, Han JK, Choi BI (2014) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to evaluate the therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 40(3):730–737. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Corines MJ, Nougaret S, Weiser MR, Khan M, Gollub MJ (2018) Gadolinium-based contrast agent during pelvic MRI: contribution to patient management in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 61(2):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000925

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Gollub MJ, Tong T, Weiser M, et al. (2017) Limited accuracy of DCE-MRI in identification of pathological complete responders after chemoradiotherapy treatment for rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 27(4):1605–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4493-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Gollub MJ, Lakhman Y, McGinty K, et al. (2015) Does gadolinium-based contrast material improve diagnostic accuracy of local invasion in rectal cancer MRI? A multireader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(2):W160–W167. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.12599

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Gollub MJ, Cao K, Gultekin DH, et al. (2013) Prognostic aspects of DCE-MRI in recurrent rectal cancer. Eur Radiol 23(12):3336–3344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2984-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Dijkhoff RAP, Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Beets GL, Maas M (2017) Value of DCE-MRI for staging and response evaluation in rectal cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 95:155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.08.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Petrillo A, Fusco R, Petrillo M, et al. (2017) Standardized index of shape (DCE-MRI) and standardized uptake value (PET/CT): two quantitative approaches to discriminate chemo-radiotherapy locally advanced rectal cancer responders under a functional profile. Oncotarget 8(5):8143–8153. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.14106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Joye I, Deroose CM, Vandecaveye V, Haustermans K (2014) The role of diffusion-weighted MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the prediction of pathologic complete response after radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 113(2):158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lambregts DM, Maas M, Riedl RG, et al. (2011) Value of ADC measurements for nodal staging after chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer-a per lesion validation study. Eur Radiol 21(2):265–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1937-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Mir N, Sohaib SA, Collins D, Koh DM (2010) Fusion of high b-value diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted MR images improves identification of lymph nodes in the pelvis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 54(4):358–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02182.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lambregts DM, Rao SX, Sassen S, et al. (2015) MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI volumetry for identification of complete tumor responders after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: a Bi-institutional Validation Study. Ann Surg 262(6):1034–1039. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000000909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Joye I, Debucquoy A, Deroose CM, et al. (2017) Quantitative imaging outperforms molecular markers when predicting response to chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Radiother Oncol 124(1):104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.06.013

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Roth ES, Fetzer DT, Barron BJ, et al. (2009) Does colon cancer ever metastasize to bone first? a temporal analysis of colorectal cancer progression. BMC Cancer 9:274. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-274

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Vargas HA, Schor-Bardach R, Long N, et al. (2017) Prostate cancer bone metastases on staging prostate MRI: prevalence and clinical features associated with their diagnosis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(1):271–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0851-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, Vliegen RF, et al. (2001) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prediction of tumour-free resection margin in rectal cancer surgery. Lancet 357(9255):497–504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Group MS (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ (Clinical Research ed) 333(7572):779. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38937.646400.55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Brown G, Richards CJ, Bourne MW, et al. (2003) Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology 227(2):371–377. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2272011747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. National working group gastrointestinal tumours (2014) National Guideline on Rectal Cancer, version 3.0. https://www.oncoline.nl

  75. Kono Y, Togashi K, Utano K, et al. (2015) Lymph node size alone is not an accurate predictor of metastases in rectal cancer: a node-for-node comparative study of specimens and histology. Am Surg 81(12):1263–1271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Smith NJ, Barbachano Y, Norman AR, et al. (2008) Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging-detected extramural vascular invasion in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 95(2):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5917

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Chand M, Siddiqui MR, Swift I, Brown G (2016) Systematic review of prognostic importance of extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 22(4):1721–1726. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i4.1721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Tripathi P, Rao SX, Zeng MS (2017) Clinical value of MRI-detected extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer. J Dig Dis 18(1):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-2980.12439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lee ES, Kim MJ, Park SC, et al. (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging-detected extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer before and after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: diagnostic performance and prognostic significance. Eur Radiol 28(2):496–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4978-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Lambregts DMJ, van Heeswijk MM, Delli Pizzi A, et al. (2017) Diffusion-weighted MRI to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: main interpretation pitfalls and their use for teaching. Eur Radiol 27(10):4445–4454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4830-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. van Heeswijk MM, Lambregts DM, Palm WM, et al. (2017) DWI for assessment of rectal cancer nodes after chemoradiotherapy: is the absence of nodes at DWI proof of a negative nodal status? AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(3):W79–W84. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Ryan JE, Warrier SK, Lynch AC, et al. (2016) Predicting pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 18(3):234–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Sathyakumar K, Chandramohan A, Masih D, et al. (2016) Best MRI predictors of complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer. Br J Radiol 89(1060):20150328. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Park MJ, Kim SH, Lee SJ, Jang KM, Rhim H (2011) Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting tumor clearance of the mesorectal fascia after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology 260(3):771–780. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. PROSPECT: chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus radiation therapy in treating patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing surgery. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01515787,

  86. Rymer B, Curtis NJ, Siddiqui MR, Chand M (2016) FDG PET/CT can assess the response of locally advanced rectal cancer to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: evidence from meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Nucl Med 41(5):371–375. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Nougaret S, Rouanet P, Molinari N, et al. (2012) MR volumetric measurement of low rectal cancer helps predict tumor response and outcome after combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology 263(2):409–418. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs. Doenja Lambregts and Monique Maas for help with the European questionnaire. We would also like to thank several members of the DFP that were not on the expert panel but contributed to the formation of the dictation templates including Drs. Bruce Minsky, Martin Weiser, Raj Paspulati, Dhakshin Ganeshan, Naomi Campbell, and Randy Ernst. Grant Support: National Institutes of Health (R25CA020449).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Marc J. Gollub

  2. Tata Memorial Centre, Dr. E Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India

    Supreeta Arya

  3. Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Regina GH Beets-Tan

  4. Baylor University Medical Center, 3500 Gaston Ave, Dallas, TX, 75246, USA

    Gregory dePrisco

  5. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Mithat Gonen & Andrea Knezevic

  6. University of Toronto University Health Network, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 2S8, Canada

    Kartik Jhaveri

  7. Schullich School of Medicine, Western University, 1151 Richmond St, London, ON, N6A 5C1, Canada

    Zahra Kassam

  8. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Harmeet Kaur

  9. University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 750 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53726, USA

    David Kim & Perry Pickhardt

  10. Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Elena Korngold

  11. UC Irvine Health, 101 The City Dr S, Orange, CA, 92868, USA

    Chandana Lall

  12. Department of Radiology, Section of Abdominal Imaging, Wake Forest University and Baptist Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

    Neeraj Lalwani

  13. University of Ottowa Medical Center, 75 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    D. Blair Macdonald

  14. Emory University School of Medicine, 1648 Pierce Dr NE, Atlanta, GA, 30307, USA

    Courtney Moreno

  15. IRCM INSERM U1194, SIRIC, 124 Avenue des Apothicaires, 34090, Montpellier, France

    Stephanie Nougaret

  16. Mayo Clinic of Rochester, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Shannon Sheedy

  17. Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Mukesh Harisinghani

Authors
  1. Marc J. Gollub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Supreeta Arya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Regina GH Beets-Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregory dePrisco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mithat Gonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kartik Jhaveri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zahra Kassam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Harmeet Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Andrea Knezevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Elena Korngold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Chandana Lall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Neeraj Lalwani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. D. Blair Macdonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Courtney Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Stephanie Nougaret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Perry Pickhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Shannon Sheedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Mukesh Harisinghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc J. Gollub.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (R25CA020449).

Conflict of interest

All authors report nothing to disclose and no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gollub, M.J., Arya, S., Beets-Tan, R.G. et al. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer patients: Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) rectal cancer disease-focused panel (DFP) recommendations 2017. Abdom Radiol 43, 2893–2902 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1642-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1642-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation