Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

SAR user guide to the rectal MR synoptic report (primary staging)

  • Hollow organ GI
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 16 September 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Bates, D.D.B., et al., Measurement of rectal tumor height from the anal verge on MRI: a comparison of internal versus external anal sphincter. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2021. 46(3): p. 867-872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Monson, J.R., et al., Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum, 2013. 56(5): p. 535-50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fitzgerald, T.L., J. Brinkley, and E.E. Zervos, Pushing the envelope beyond a centimeter in rectal cancer: oncologic implications of close, but negative margins. J Am Coll Surg, 2011. 213(5): p. 589-95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hope, T.A., et al., Rectal cancer lexicon: consensus statement from the society of abdominal radiology rectal & anal cancer disease-focused panel. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2019. 44(11): p. 3508-3517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor, F.G., et al., Preoperative high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging can identify good prognosis stage I, II, and III rectal cancer best managed by surgery alone: a prospective, multicenter, European study. Ann Surg, 2011. 253(4): p. 711-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bipat, S., et al., Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging--a meta-analysis. Radiology, 2004. 232(3): p. 773-83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lord, A.C., et al., MRI-Diagnosed Tumour Deposits and EMVI Status Have Superior Prognostic Accuracy to Current Clinical TNM Staging in Rectal Cancer. Ann Surg, 2020. Sep 15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nagtegaal, I.D. and P. Quirke, What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol, 2008. 26(2): p. 303-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Habr-Gama, A., et al., Operative versus nonoperative treatment for stage 0 distal rectal cancer following chemoradiation therapy: long-term results. Ann Surg, 2004. 240(4): p. 711–7; discussion 717–8.

  10. Horvat, N., et al., MRI of Rectal Cancer: TumorStaging, Imaging Techniques, and Management. RadioGraphics, 2019. 39: p. 367-387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, G., et al., Morphologic predictors of lymph node status in rectal cancer with use of high-spatial-resolution MR imaging with histopathologic comparison. Radiology, 2003. 227(2): p. 371-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kotanagi, H., et al., The size of regional lymph nodes does not correlate with the presence or absence of metastasis in lymph nodes in rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol, 1993. 54(4): p. 252-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Beets-Tan, R.G.H., et al., 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, 2018. 28(4): p. 1465-1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ogura, A., et al., Lateral Nodal Features on Restaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Associated With Lateral Local Recurrence in Low Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy or Radiotherapy. JAMA Surg, 2019. 154(9): p. e192172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

SAR DFP (additional members): Arya S, Baheti A, Beets-Tan R, dePrisco G, Ernst R, Ganeshan D, Hope T, Horvat N, Jhaveri K, Kaur H, Korngold E, Lalwani N, Moreno C, Petkovska I, Pickhardt PJ, Rauche G, Sheedy S, Nepal P, Lalani T, Homsi ME, Wasnik A, Maheshwari E.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. H. Kim.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The following author names are included in the final proof of the article by inadvertently “P. Nepal, T. Lalani, M. E. Homsi, A. Wasnik, E. Maheshwari”. However, it is now corrected.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kassam, Z., Lang, R., Bates, D.D.B. et al. SAR user guide to the rectal MR synoptic report (primary staging). Abdom Radiol 48, 186–199 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03578-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03578-2

Keywords

Navigation