Reducing Acquisition Time of Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging of the Rectum with Simultaneous Multi-Slice Acquisition: A Reader Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the acquisition time and image quality of simultaneous multislice-accelerated diffusion-weighted imaging (SMS-DWI) versus conventional DWI (C-DWI) of the rectum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In patients scheduled for a magnetic resonance imaging of the rectum, both SMS-DWI and C-DWI were performed on a 3T whole body magnetic resonance scanner. Image quality of the DWI sequences was reviewed by two independent radiologists who were blinded to the method of imaging using a five-point Likert scale: (score ranging from 1 (non-diagnostic) to 5 (excellent). The mean scores of SMS-DWI versus C-DWI were compared for the individual readers using a nonparametric test (Wilcoxon signed ranks).

RESULTS

The SMS-DWI protocol acquisition time was 4:08 min vs. 7:24 min per patient, which led to a reduction of 44.1% for the C-DWI protocol, both excluding time for sequence specific adjustments (shimming). No statistical differences between the conventional-, and SMS- diffusion weighted images were seen for both readers. Mean overall image quality of the SMS-DWI TRACE images was 3.5 (SD: 1.3) and 3.3 (SD: 1.0) for reader 1 and reader 2, respectively. Mean overall image quality of the C-DWI TRACE images was 3.4 (SD: 1.3) and 3.2 (SD: 1.1) for reader 1 and reader 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Optimized SMS-DWI compared to C-DWI in imaging of the rectum showed similar image quality while a significant acquisition time reduction was achieved.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging of Colorectal Cancer: 2021 Update

Preoperative imaging of rectal carcinoma involves accurate assessment of the primary tumor as well as distant metastatic disease. Preoperative imaging of nonrectal colon cancer is most beneficial in identifying distant metastases, regardless of primary T or N stage. Surgical treatment remains the definitive treatment for colon cancer, while organ-sparing approach may be considered in some rectal cancer patients based on imaging obtained before and after neoadjuvant treatment. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Optimal Imaging Strategies for Rectal Cancer Staging and Ongoing Management

Imaging determines the optimal treatment for rectal cancer patients. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) overcomes many of the known limitations of previous methods. When performed in accordance with the recommended standards, MRI enables accurate staging of both early and advanced rectal cancer, accurate response assessment, the delineation of recurrent disease and planning surgical treatment in a safe and effective manner. Tumour-related high-risk features with known adverse outcomes can be preoperatively identified and treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Further, MRI post-treatment tumour response assessment using TRG grading system also predicts the likely survival outcomes and in the future will be used to modify treatment further by stratification into good and poor responders. There is a paucity of literature with validated outcome data concerning use of diffusion-weighted imaging and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), and in the absence of any validated methods and outcome data, their use in the initial assessment and restaging after treatment is limited to research protocols. Combination MRI and CT is essential for distant spread assessment and recurrent disease, and currently PET-CT is sometimes used in the workup of patients with recurrent and metastatic disease.

A structured approach to reporting rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVE

Rectal cancers are the second most common GI carcinoma. Prognosis and therapeutic decisions hinge on the extent of disease. We present a comprehensive structured approach for staging rectal cancer using MRI to ensure the clear, concise, and standardized communication of disease extent to guide optimal treatment planning.

CONCLUSION

MRI is crucial for local staging of rectal cancer. A standardized approach to reporting of rectal MRI focused on communication of essential treatment planning and prognostic indicators ensures maximal added value to referring physicians to guide appropriate management.

Magnetic resonance imaging of rectal cancer: staging and restaging evaluation

Magnetic resonance imaging is used to non-invasively stage and restage rectal adenocarcinomas. Accurate staging is important as the depth of tumor extension and the presence or absence of lymph node metastases determines if an individual will undergo preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Accurate description of tumor location is important for presurgical planning. The relationship of the tumor to the anal sphincter in addition to the depth of local invasion determines the surgical approach used for resection. High-resolution T2-weighted imaging is the primary sequence used for initial staging. The addition of diffusion-weighted imaging improves accuracy in the assessment of treatment response on restaging scans. Approximately 10%-30% of individuals will experience a complete pathologic response following chemoradiation with no residual viable tumor found in the resected specimen at histopathologic assessment. In some centers, individuals with no residual tumor visible on restaging MR who are thought to be at high operative risk are monitored with serial imaging and a "watch and wait" approach in lieu of resection. Normal rectal anatomy, MR technique utilized for staging and restaging scans, and TMN staging are reviewed. An overview of surgical techniques used for resection including newer, minimally invasive endoluminal techniques is included.