OBJECTIVES: To develop guidelines describing a standardised approach regarding the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. METHODS: A consensus meeting of 14 abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) was conducted following the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) chairs facilitated the meeting. Two hundred and thirty-six items were scored by participants for appropriateness and classified subsequently as appropriate or inappropriate (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Items not reaching 80 % consensus were noted. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 88 % of items: recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences, angulation, criteria for MRI assessment and MRI reporting were constructed from these. CONCLUSIONS: These expert consensus recommendations can be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. KEY POINTS: • These guidelines recommend standardised imaging for staging and restaging of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 abdominal imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by in 88 % of 236 items discussed.
OBJECTIVES: To develop guidelines describing a standardised approach regarding the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. METHODS: A consensus meeting of 14 abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) was conducted following the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) chairs facilitated the meeting. Two hundred and thirty-six items were scored by participants for appropriateness and classified subsequently as appropriate or inappropriate (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Items not reaching 80 % consensus were noted. RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 88 % of items: recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences, angulation, criteria for MRI assessment and MRI reporting were constructed from these. CONCLUSIONS: These expert consensus recommendations can be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. KEY POINTS: • These guidelines recommend standardised imaging for staging and restaging of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 abdominal imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by in 88 % of 236 items discussed.
Authors: M J Gollub; D H Gultekin; O Akin; R K Do; J L Fuqua; M Gonen; D Kuk; M Weiser; L Saltz; D Schrag; K Goodman; P Paty; J Guillem; G M Nash; L Temple; J Shia; L H Schwartz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gina Brown; Catherine J Richards; Michael W Bourne; Robert G Newcombe; Andrew G Radcliffe; Nicholas S Dallimore; Geraint T Williams Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gina Brown; Alex Kirkham; Geraint T Williams; Michael Bourne; Andrew G Radcliffe; Joanne Sayman; Richard Newell; Chummy Sinnatamby; Richard J Heald Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: G Lezoche; M Baldarelli; Mario Guerrieri; A M Paganini; A De Sanctis; S Bartolacci; E Lezoche Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Miriam M van Heeswijk; Andrea Delli Pizzi; Saskia G C van Elderen; Luisa Andrade; Nicky H G M Peters; Peter A M Kint; Margreet Osinga-de Jong; Shandra Bipat; Rik Ooms; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Frans C H Bakers; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: R García-Carbonero; R Vera; F Rivera; E Parlorio; M Pagés; E González-Flores; C Fernández-Martos; M Á Corral; R Bouzas; F Matute Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 3.405