Abstract
Abstract
Background
Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the modality used for baseline assessment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and restaging after neoadjuvant treatment. The overall audited quality of MR imaging in large multicentre trials on rectal cancer is so far not routinely reported.
Materials and methods
We collected MR images obtained within the Rectal Cancer And Pre-operative Induction Therapy Followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial and performed an audit of the technical features of image acquisition. The required MR sequences and slice thickness stated in the RAPIDO protocol were used as a reference.
Results
Out of 920 participants of the RAPIDO study, MR investigations of 668 and 623 patients in the baseline and restaging setting, respectively, were collected. Of these, 304/668 (45.5%) and 328/623 (52.6%) MR images, respectively, fulfilled the technical quality criteria. The main reason for non-compliance was exceeding slice thickness 238/668, 35.6% in the baseline setting and 162/623, 26.0% in the restaging setting. In 166/668, 24.9% and 168/623, 27.0% MR images in the baseline and restaging setting, respectively, one or more of the required pulse sequences were missing.
Conclusion
Altogether, 49.0% of the MR images obtained within the RAPIDO trial fulfilled the image acquisition criteria required in the study protocol. High-quality MR imaging should be expected for the appropriate initial treatment and response evaluation of patients with LARC, and efforts should be made to maximise the quality of imaging in clinical trials and in clinical practice.
Critical relevance statement
This audit highlights the importance of adherence to MR image acquisition criteria for rectal cancer, both in multicentre trials and in daily clinical practice. High-resolution images allow correct staging, treatment stratification and evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment.
Key points
- Complying to MR acquisition guidelines in multicentre trials is challenging.
- Neglection on MR acquisition criteria leads to poor staging and treatment.
- MR acquisition guidelines should be followed in trials and clinical practice.
- Researchers should consider mandatory audits prior to study initiation.
Graphical Abstract
Funder
HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference42 articles.
1. Estimated number of prevalent cases (5-year) in 2020, Europe, both sexes, all ages (2020) Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-pie?v=2020&mode=cancer&mode_population=continents&population=900&populations=900&key=total&sex=0&cancer=39&type=2&statistic=5&prevalence=1&population_group=0&ages_group%5B%5D=0&ages_group%5B%5D=17&nb_items=7&group_cancer=1&include_nmsc=1&include_nmsc_other=1&half_pie=0&donut=0. [Cited 04–07–2023]
2. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Nordlinger B, Arnold D, on behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group* (2014) Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Anna Oncol 25:iii1–iii9
3. van de Velde CJ, Boelens PG, Borras JM et al (2014) EURECCA colorectal: multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum. Eur J Cancer 50(1):1.e-e34
4. Beets-Tan RGH, Lambregts DMJ, Maas 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
5. Santiago I, Rodrigues B, Barata M et al (2021) Re-staging and follow-up of rectal cancer patients with MR imaging when “Watch-and-Wait” is an option: a practical guide. Insights Imaging 12(1):114