Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the completeness and discordance of outside rectal MRI initial staging reports compared to second-opinion reviews, and to assess the potential clinical impact of major discordance on treatment decisions in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A retrospective analysis of outside rectal MRI reviews submitted for second-opinion interpretation by subspecialized radiologists from June 2014-March 2020 was conducted. Outside and second review reports were compared side-by-side; cases with discordance (and those with major discordance, i.e., may alter treatment, particularly) were identified. Two colorectal surgeons, blinded to report origins, reviewed cases with major discordance to evaluate their theoretical impact on patient management and rated their confidence level of the reports on a five-point Likert scale (1=lowest confidence). RESULTS:In 461 patients (median age, 57 years [IQR: 49-67]; 274 male), compared to outside reviews, second reviews demonstrated improved report completeness across tumor characteristics, local extent, and nodal/metastatic disease clinical staging categories. The largest reporting gaps were in tumor morphology (66.4%, 306/461 vs. 98.7%, 455/461) and extramural venous invasion (29.1%, 134/461 vs. 93.9%, 433/461). Overall, 53.8% (248/461) of cases showed discordance, with 56.5% (140/248) classified as major. In this subset, second reviews led to fewer cases with insufficient information, e.g., 18.6% (26/140) to 7.1% (10/140) for Surgeon 1, and changes in surgical planning in 38.1-46.3% (43/113 to 44/95) of patients. Surgeons rated reports from second reviews with higher confidence scores (median, 4 vs. 2-3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Second-opinion reviews may impact patient care and improve surgeons' confidence for treatment planning. KEY POINTS/CONCLUSIONS:Question Do subspecialist radiologist second-opinion reviews improve rectal MRI report completeness and affect treatment decisions in rectal adenocarcinoma staging? Findings While outside reviews often under-reported key imaging findings, second reviews improved report completeness, which led to increased confidence by our surgeons in treatment planning. Clinical relevance These findings underscore the value of expert interpretation and highlight the need for optimized MRI protocols and broader adoption of structured reporting in rectal cancer staging.

Traumatic injury is one of the leading causes of emergent hospital evaluations. Specifically, blunt bowel and mesenteric injury (BBMI) account for 1% to 5% of abdominal traumas with a high morbidity and mortality, as clinical signs and nonspecific imaging findings make the initial diagnosis challenging. Understanding key imaging findings and the clinical symptoms can increase the radiologist's suspicion for BBMI and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

The role and method of image-based staging of anal cancer has evolved with the rapid development of newer imaging modalities and the need to address the rising incidence of this rare cancer. In 2014, the European Society of Medical Oncology mandated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer and subsequently other societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network followed suit with similar recommendations. Nevertheless, great variability exists from center to center and even within individual centers. Notably, this is in stark contrast to the imaging of the anatomically nearby rectal cancer. As participating team members for this malignancy, we embarked on a comprehensive literature review of anal cancer imaging to understand the relative merits of these new technologies which developed after computed tomography (CT), e.g., MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The results of this literature review helped to inform our next stage: questionnaire development regarding the imaging of anal cancer. Next, we distributed the questionnaire to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Rectal and Anal Disease-Focused Panel, a group of abdominal radiologists with special interest, experience, and expertise in rectal and anal cancer, to provide expert radiologist opinion on the appropriate anal cancer imaging strategy. In our expert opinion survey, experts advocated the use of MRI in general (65% overall and 91-100% for primary staging clinical scenarios) and acknowledged the superiority of PET/CT for nodal assessment (52-56% agreement for using PET/CT in primary staging clinical scenarios compared to 30% for using MRI). We therefore support the use of MRI and PET and suggest further exploration of PET/MRI as an optimal combined evaluation. Our questionnaire responses emphasized the heterogeneity in imaging practice as performed at numerous academic cancer centers across the United States and underscore the need for further reconciliation and establishment of best imaging practice guidelines for optimized patient care in anal cancer.

Radiologic imaging, especially MRI, has long been the mainstay for rectal cancer staging and patient selection for neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgical resection. In contrast, colonoscopy and CT have been the standard for colon cancer diagnosis and metastasis staging with T and N staging often performed at the time of surgical resection. With recent clinical trials exploring the expansion of the use of neoadjuvant therapy beyond the anorectum to the remainder of the colon, the current and future state of colon cancer treatment is evolving with a renewed interest in evaluating the role radiology may play in the primary T staging of colon cancer. The performance of CT, CT colonography, MRI, and FDG PET-CT for colon cancer staging will be reviewed. N staging will also be briefly discussed. It is expected that accurate radiologic T staging will significantly impact future clinical decisions regarding the neoadjuvant versus surgical management of colon cancer.

PURPOSE:To compare four diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences for image quality, rectal contour, and lesion conspicuity, and to assess the difference in their signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). METHODS:). Two radiologists independently scored image quality using a 5-point Likert scale. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using the weighted Cohen's к. SNR, CNR, and ADC measurements were compared using the paired t-test. RESULTS:For both readers, MUSE b800 scored significantly higher for image quality, rectal contour, and lesion conspicuity compared to ss-EPI; MUSE b800 also scored significantly higher for image quality and rectal contour compared to all other sequences. Lesion conspicuity was equally superior for MUSE b800 and MUSE b1500 compared to the other two sequences. There was good to excellent inter-reader agreement for all qualitative features (к = 0.72-0.88). MUSE b800 had the highest SNR; MUSE b1500 had the highest CNR. A significant difference in ADC was observed between ss-EPI compared to the other sequences (p < 0.001) and between MUSE b800 and FOCUS. No significant difference in ADC was found between MUSE b1500 and FOCUS b1500. CONCLUSION:MUSE b800 improved image quality over ss-EPI and both MUSE b800 and b1500 showed better tumor conspicuity compared to conventional ss-EPI.

BACKGROUND:Extramural venous invasion (EMVI) on baseline MRI is associated with poor prognosis in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. This study investigated the association of persistent EMVI after total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) (chemoradiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy) with survival. METHODS:Baseline MRI, post-TNT MRI, and surgical pathology data from 175 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent TNT and total mesorectal excision between 2010 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for evidence of EMVI. Two radiologists assessed EMVI status with disagreement adjudicated by a third. Pathologic EMVI status was assessed per departmental standards. Cox regression models evaluated the associations between EMVI and disease-free and overall survival. RESULTS:EMVI regression on both post-TNT MRI and surgical pathology was associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.04-0.64) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.68). In an exploratory analysis of 35 patients with EMVI on baseline MRI, only six had EMVI on pathology compared with 18 on post-TNT MRI; these findings were not associated (p = 0.2). Longer disease-free survival was seen with regression on both modalities compared with remaining positive. Regression on pathology alone, independent of MRI EMVI status, was associated with similar improvements in survival. CONCLUSIONS:Baseline EMVI is associated with poor prognosis even after TNT. EMVI regression on surgical pathology is common even with persistent EMVI on post-TNT MRI. EMVI regression on surgical pathology is associated with improved DFS, while the utility of post-TNT MRI EMVI persistence for decision-making and prognosis remains unclear.

Rectal MR is the key diagnostic exam at initial presentation for rectal cancer patients. It is the primary determinant in establishing clinical stage for the patient and greatly impacts the clinical decision-making process. Consequently, structured reporting for MR is critically important to ensure that all required information is provided to the clinical care team. The SAR initial staging reporting template has been constructed to address these important items, including locoregional extent and factors impacting the surgical approach and management of the patient. Potential outputs to each item are defined, requiring the radiologist to commit to a result. This provides essential information to the surgeon or oncologist to make specific treatment deisions for the patient. The SAR Initial Staging MR reporting template has now been officially adopted by the NAPRC (National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer) under the American College of Surgery. With the recent revisions to the reporting template, this user guide has been revamped to improve its practicality and support to the radiologist to complete the structured report. Each line item of the report is supplemented with clinical perspectives, images, and illustrations to help the radiologist understand the potential implications for a given finding. Common errors and pitfalls to avoid are highlighted. Ideally, rectal MR interpretation should not occur in a vacuum but in the context of a multi-disciplinary tumor board to ensure that healthcare providers use common terminology and share a solid understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of MR.

Background Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging is useful in detecting tumor in the primary tumor bed in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after neoadjuvant therapy, but its value in detecting extramural venous invasion (EMVI) and tumor deposit is not well validated. Purpose To evaluate diagnostic accuracy and association with patient prognosis of viable EMVI and tumor deposit on DW images in patients with LARC after neoadjuvant therapy using whole-mount pathology specimens. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and surgery from 2018 to 2021. Innovative five-point Likert scale was used by two radiologists to independently evaluate the likelihood of viable EMVI and tumor deposit on restaging DW MRI scans in four axial quadrants (12 to 3 o'clock, 3 to 6 o'clock, 6 to 9 o'clock, and 9 to 12 o'clock). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed at both the per-quadrant and per-patient level, with whole-mount pathology as the reference standard. Weighted κ values for interreader agreement and Cox regression models for disease-free survival and overall survival analyses were used. Results A total of 117 patients (mean age, 56 years ± 12 [SD]; 70 male, 47 female) were included. Pathologically proven viable EMVI and tumor deposit was detected in 29 of 117 patients (25%) and in 44 of 468 quadrants (9.4%). Per-quadrant analyses showed an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.83), with sensitivity and specificity of 55% and 96%, respectively. Good interreader agreement was observed between the radiologists (κ = 0.62). Per-patient analysis showed sensitivity and specificity of 62% and 93%, respectively. The presence of EMVI and tumor deposit on restaging DW MRI scans was associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 5.6; 95% CI: 2.4, 13.3) and overall survival (HR, 8.9; 95% CI: 1.6, 48.5). Conclusion DW imaging using the five-point Likert scale showed high specificity and moderate sensitivity in the detection of viable extramural venous invasion and tumor deposits in LARC after neoadjuvant therapy, and its presence on restaging DW MRI scans is associated with worse prognosis. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Méndez and Ayuso in this issue.