Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To analyze how the MRI reporting of rectal cancer has evolved (following guideline updates) in The Netherlands.
Methods
Retrospective analysis of 712 patients (2011–2018) from 8 teaching hospitals in The Netherlands with available original radiological staging reports that were re-evaluated by a dedicated MR expert using updated guideline criteria. Original reports were classified as “free-text,” “semi-structured,” or “template” and completeness of reporting was documented. Patients were categorized as low versus high risk, first based on the original reports (high risk = cT3-4, cN+, and/or cMRF+) and then based on the expert re-evaluations (high risk = cT3cd-4, cN+, MRF+, and/or EMVI+). Evolutions over time were studied by splitting the inclusion period in 3 equal time periods.
Results
A significant increase in template reporting was observed (from 1.6 to 17.6–29.6%; p < 0.001), along with a significant increase in the reporting of cT-substage, number of N+ and extramesorectal nodes, MRF invasion and tumor-MRF distance, EMVI, anal sphincter involvement, and tumor morphology and circumference. Expert re-evaluation changed the risk classification from high to low risk in 18.0% of cases and from low to high risk in 1.7% (total 19.7%). In the majority (17.9%) of these cases, the changed risk classification was likely (at least in part) related to use of updated guideline criteria, which mainly led to a reduction in high-risk cT-stage and nodal downstaging.
Conclusion
Updated concepts of risk stratification have increasingly been adopted, accompanied by an increase in template reporting and improved completeness of reporting. Use of updated guideline criteria resulted in considerable downstaging (of mainly high-risk cT-stage and nodal stage).
Graphic abstract
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Urology,Gastroenterology,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
Reference30 articles.
1. Glynne-Jones R, Wyrwicz L, Tiret E, Brown G, Rödel C, Cervantes A, Arnold D; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv22-iv40.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Rectal cancer (version 1.2021) Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf Accessed April 20, 2021
3. Federatie Medische specialisten. Landelijke richtlijn colorectaal carcinoom (2019 update). Available at: https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/colorectaal_carcinoom_crc/startpagina_-_crc.html Accessed April 20, 2021
4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2020). Colorectal cancer [NICE Guideline No. 151]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng151
5. Jessup M.J, Goldberg R.M, Asare E.A. et al. CP. Colon and Rectum. In: Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, et al. Eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition). Springer, 2017: 251–73.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献