Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus

  • Objectives: To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them. Methods: A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists. Results: Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. Conclusions: The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

Download full text files

Export metadata

Metadaten
Author:Doenja M. J. LambregtsORCiD, Nino BogveradzeGND, Lennart K. BlomqvistORCiD, Emmanouil FokasORCiDGND, Julio Garcia-AguilarORCiDGND, Bengt GlimeliusORCiD, Marc J. GollubORCiD, Tsuyoshi KonishiORCiD, Corrie A. M. MarijnenORCiD, Iris D. NagtegaalORCiD, Per J. NilssonORCiD, Rodrigo O. Perez, Petur SnaebjornssonORCiD, Stuart A. TaylorORCiD, Damian J. M. TolanORCiD, Vincenzo ValentiniORCiDGND, Nicholas P. WestORCiD, Albert WolthuisORCiD, Max J. LahayeORCiD, Monique MaasORCiD, Geerard BeetsORCiDGND, Regina G. H. Beets-TanGND
URN:urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:3-751559
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08591-z
ISSN:1432-1084
ISSN:1613-3757
Parent Title (English):European radiology
Publisher:Springer
Place of publication:Berlin ; Heidelberg
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Date of Publication (online):2022/03/07
Date of first Publication:2022/03/07
Publishing Institution:Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg
Release Date:2024/08/19
Tag:Consensus; Guideline; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm staging; Rectal neoplasms
Volume:32
Issue:7
Page Number:13
First Page:4991
Last Page:5003
HeBIS-PPN:521205093
Institutes:Medizin
Dewey Decimal Classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 61 Medizin und Gesundheit / 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
Sammlungen:Universitätspublikationen
Licence (German):License LogoCreative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International