直肠癌的 MR 分期:2012年和2016年欧洲胃肠和腹部放射学会(ESGAR)指南的比较

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Piero Boraschi , Francescamaria Donati , Rosa Cervelli , Kathrine Bani , Riccardo Morganti , Niccolò Furbetta , Luca Morelli , Emanuele Neri
{"title":"直肠癌的 MR 分期:2012年和2016年欧洲胃肠和腹部放射学会(ESGAR)指南的比较","authors":"Piero Boraschi ,&nbsp;Francescamaria Donati ,&nbsp;Rosa Cervelli ,&nbsp;Kathrine Bani ,&nbsp;Riccardo Morganti ,&nbsp;Niccolò Furbetta ,&nbsp;Luca Morelli ,&nbsp;Emanuele Neri","doi":"10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the adherence of the interpretation and reporting staging system, respectively proposed in the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) staging of rectal cancer, focusing on the improvement offered by the criteria introduced by 2016 ESGAR guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Fifty-six patients affected by rectal cancer were included; 25/56 patients underwent upfront surgery; 31 underwent to neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy before surgery. All patients underwent 3 T MRI examination for local staging. All MR exams were evaluated by two radiologists with 20- and 4-years’ experience, who were blinded to each other; the T and N stages, the Mesorectal Fascia (MRF) status and the Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI) were assessed according to both 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. The correlation between radiological and pathological findings, as well as the MRI staging were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>As to the expert reviewer, no significant differences were found by comparing the MR T and N stages, T and N restaging, MRF status and EMVI according to 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. As to the 4-years’ experience radiologist the MR staging agreement between 2012 and 2016 guidelines was “moderate” in N-stage evaluation and “fair” in T-restaging evaluation. No significant discrepancies were found for other parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>MRI is a reliable method in rectal cancer staging/restaging. The assessment of T-restaging is improved by adopting the 2016 ESGAR guidelines, especially for non-expert readers; this result could be justified by the introduction of diffusion-weighted imaging. On the contrary, the newest guidelines do not improve the diagnostic performance in assessing nodal staging and restaging.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12063,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 111804"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MR staging of rectal cancer: Comparison between the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Piero Boraschi ,&nbsp;Francescamaria Donati ,&nbsp;Rosa Cervelli ,&nbsp;Kathrine Bani ,&nbsp;Riccardo Morganti ,&nbsp;Niccolò Furbetta ,&nbsp;Luca Morelli ,&nbsp;Emanuele Neri\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111804\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the adherence of the interpretation and reporting staging system, respectively proposed in the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) staging of rectal cancer, focusing on the improvement offered by the criteria introduced by 2016 ESGAR guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Fifty-six patients affected by rectal cancer were included; 25/56 patients underwent upfront surgery; 31 underwent to neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy before surgery. All patients underwent 3 T MRI examination for local staging. All MR exams were evaluated by two radiologists with 20- and 4-years’ experience, who were blinded to each other; the T and N stages, the Mesorectal Fascia (MRF) status and the Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI) were assessed according to both 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. The correlation between radiological and pathological findings, as well as the MRI staging were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>As to the expert reviewer, no significant differences were found by comparing the MR T and N stages, T and N restaging, MRF status and EMVI according to 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. As to the 4-years’ experience radiologist the MR staging agreement between 2012 and 2016 guidelines was “moderate” in N-stage evaluation and “fair” in T-restaging evaluation. No significant discrepancies were found for other parameters.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>MRI is a reliable method in rectal cancer staging/restaging. The assessment of T-restaging is improved by adopting the 2016 ESGAR guidelines, especially for non-expert readers; this result could be justified by the introduction of diffusion-weighted imaging. On the contrary, the newest guidelines do not improve the diagnostic performance in assessing nodal staging and restaging.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Radiology\",\"volume\":\"181 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111804\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X24005205\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X24005205","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 比较2012年和2016年欧洲胃肠道和腹部放射学会(ESGAR)《直肠癌磁共振成像(MRI)分期指南》分别提出的解释和报告分期系统的遵循情况,重点关注2016年ESGAR指南引入的标准所带来的改进。方法 纳入56例直肠癌患者;25/56例患者接受了前期手术;31例患者在手术前接受了新辅助化疗和放疗。所有患者均接受了 3 T MRI 检查,以进行局部分期。所有磁共振检查均由两位分别有20年和4年经验的放射科医生进行评估,他们互不设盲;T期和N期、中直肠筋膜(MRF)状态和壁外血管侵犯(EMVI)均根据2012年和2016年ESGAR指南进行评估。结果就专家评审员而言,根据 2012 年和 2016 年 ESGAR 指南比较 MR T 和 N 分期、T 和 N 重分期、MRF 状态和 EMVI,未发现显著差异。对于有 4 年经验的放射科医生而言,2012 年和 2016 年指南在 N 期评估方面的 MR 分期一致性为 "中度",而在 T 重分期评估方面为 "尚可"。结论 MRI 是直肠癌分期/预后的可靠方法。采用2016年ESGAR指南后,T分期评估得到了改善,尤其是对非专业读者而言;这一结果可能是由于引入了弥散加权成像。相反,最新指南并没有提高评估结节分期和再分期的诊断性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
MR staging of rectal cancer: Comparison between the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines

Purpose

To compare the adherence of the interpretation and reporting staging system, respectively proposed in the 2012 and 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) staging of rectal cancer, focusing on the improvement offered by the criteria introduced by 2016 ESGAR guidelines.

Method

Fifty-six patients affected by rectal cancer were included; 25/56 patients underwent upfront surgery; 31 underwent to neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy before surgery. All patients underwent 3 T MRI examination for local staging. All MR exams were evaluated by two radiologists with 20- and 4-years’ experience, who were blinded to each other; the T and N stages, the Mesorectal Fascia (MRF) status and the Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI) were assessed according to both 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. The correlation between radiological and pathological findings, as well as the MRI staging were evaluated.

Results

As to the expert reviewer, no significant differences were found by comparing the MR T and N stages, T and N restaging, MRF status and EMVI according to 2012 and 2016 ESGAR guidelines. As to the 4-years’ experience radiologist the MR staging agreement between 2012 and 2016 guidelines was “moderate” in N-stage evaluation and “fair” in T-restaging evaluation. No significant discrepancies were found for other parameters.

Conclusions

MRI is a reliable method in rectal cancer staging/restaging. The assessment of T-restaging is improved by adopting the 2016 ESGAR guidelines, especially for non-expert readers; this result could be justified by the introduction of diffusion-weighted imaging. On the contrary, the newest guidelines do not improve the diagnostic performance in assessing nodal staging and restaging.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
398
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: European Journal of Radiology is an international journal which aims to communicate to its readers, state-of-the-art information on imaging developments in the form of high quality original research articles and timely reviews on current developments in the field. Its audience includes clinicians at all levels of training including radiology trainees, newly qualified imaging specialists and the experienced radiologist. Its aim is to inform efficient, appropriate and evidence-based imaging practice to the benefit of patients worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信