Objectives To update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. Methods Fourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Results Consensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template. Conclusions These updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. Key Points • These guidelines present recommendations for staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 pelvic imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by the experts for 92 % of the 246 items discussed. • Practical guidelines for nodal staging are proposed. • A structured reporting template is presented.

To determine diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for assessment of complete tumor response (CR) after combined radiation therapy with chemotherapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) by means of volumetric signal intensity measurements and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements and to compare the performance of DW imaging with that of T2-weighted MR volumetry. A retrospective analysis of 50 patients with LARC, for whom clinical and imaging data were retrieved from a previous imaging study approved by the local institutional ethical committee and for which all patients provided informed consent, was conducted. Patients underwent pre- and post-CRT standard T2-weighted MR and DW MR. Two independent readers placed free-hand regions of interest (ROIs) in each tumor-containing section on both data sets to determine pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes and tumor volume reduction rates (volume). ROIs were copied to an ADC map to calculate tumor ADCs. Histopathologic findings were the standard of reference. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare performance of T2-weighted and DW MR volumetry and ADC. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate interobserver variability and the correlation between T2-weighted and DW MR volumetry. Areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) for identification of a CR that was based on pre-CRT volume, post-CRT volume, and volume, respectively, were 0.57, 0.70, and 0.84 for T2-weighted MR versus 0.63, 0.93, and 0.92 for DW MR volumetry (P = .15, .02, .42). Pre- and post-CRT ADC and ADC AUCs were 0.55, 0.54, and 0.51, respectively. Interobserver agreement was excellent for all pre-CRT measurements (ICC, 0.91-0.96) versus good (ICC, 0.61-0.79) for post-CRT measurements. ICC between T2-weighted and DW MR volumetry was excellent (0.97) for pre-CRT measurements versus fair (0.25) for post-CRT measurements. Post-CRT DW MR volumetry provided high diagnostic performance in assessing CR and was significantly more accurate than T2-weighted MR volumetry. Post-CRT DW MR was equally as accurate as volume measurements of both T2-weighted and DW MR. Pre-CRT volumetry and ADC were not reliable.

Objectives To assess the influence of region of interest (ROI) size and positioning on tumour ADC measurements and interobserver variability in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Methods Forty-six LARC patients were retrospectively included. Patients underwent MRI including DWI (b0,500,1000) before and 6–8 weeks after chemoradiation (CRT). Two readers measured mean tumour ADCs (pre- and post-CRT) according to three ROI protocols: whole-volume, single-slice or small solid samples. The three protocols were compared for differences in ADC, SD and interobserver variability (measured as the intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC). Results ICC for the whole-volume ROIs was excellent (0.91) pre-CRT versus good (0.66) post-CRT. ICCs were 0.53 and 0.42 for the single-slice ROIs versus 0.60 and 0.65 for the sample ROIs. Pre-CRT ADCs for the sample ROIs were significantly lower than for the whole-volume or single-slice ROIs. Post-CRT there were no significant differences between the whole-volume ROIs and the single-slice or sample ROIs, respectively. The SDs for the whole-volume and single-slice ROIs were significantly larger than for the sample ROIs. Conclusions ROI size and positioning have a considerable influence on tumour ADC values and interobserver variability. Interobserver variability is worse after CRT. ADCs obtained from the whole tumour volume provide the most reproducible results. Key Points • ROI size and positioning influence tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer • ROI size and positioning influence interobserver variability of tumour ADC measurements • ADC measurements of the whole tumour volume provide the most reproducible results • Tumour ADC measurements are more reproducible before, rather than after, chemoradiation treatment • Variations caused by ROI size and positioning should be taken into account when using ADC as a biomarker for tumour response

Purpose: To assess the value of diffusion‐weighted MR imaging (DWI) as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness in rectal cancer, by analyzing the relationship between tumoral apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and MRI and histological prognostic parameters.Materials and Methods: Fifty rectal cancer patients underwent primary staging MRI including DWI before surgery and neo‐adjuvant therapy. In 47, surgery was preceded by short‐course radiation therapy (n = 28) or long‐course chemoradiation therapy (n = 19). Mean tumor ADC was measured and compared between subgroups based on pretreatment CEA levels, MRI parameters (mesorectal fascia ‐ MRF ‐ status; T‐stage; N‐stage) and histological parameters (differentiation grade: poorly differentiated, poorly moderately differentiated, moderately differentiated, moderately well differentiated, well‐differentiated; lymphangiovascular invasion).Results: Mean tumor ADCs differ between MRF‐free versus MRF‐invaded tumors (P = 0.013), the groups of cN0 versus cN+ cancers (P = 0.011), and between the several groups of histological differentiation grades (P = 0.025). There was no significant difference in mean ADCs between the various groups of CEA levels, the T stage, and the presence of lymphangiovascular invasion.Conclusion: Lower ADC values were associated with a more aggressive tumor profile. Significant correlations were found between mean ADC values and radiological MRF status, N stage and differentiation grade. ADC has the potential to become an imaging biomarker of tumor aggressiveness profile. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2012;35:1365–1371.

Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) uses different energy spectrum x-ray beams for differentiating materials with similar attenuation at a certain energy. Compared with single-energy CT, it provides images with better diagnostic performance and a potential reduction of contrast agent and radiation doses. There are different commercially available DECT technologies, with machines that may display two x-ray sources and two detectors, a single source capable of fast switching between two energy levels, a specialized detector capable of acquiring high- and low-energy data sets, and a filter splitting the beam into high- and low-energy beams at the output. Sequential acquisition at different tube voltages is an alternative approach. This narrative review describes the DECT technique using a Q&A format and visual representations. Physical concepts, parameters influencing image quality, postprocessing methods, applicability in daily routine workflow, and radiation considerations are discussed. Differences between scanners are described, regarding design, image quality variabilities, and their advantages and limitations. Additionally, current clinical applications are listed, and future perspectives for spectral CT imaging are addressed. Acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of different DECT scanners is important, as these could be adapted to each patient, clinical scenario, and financial capability. This technology is undoubtedly valuable and will certainly keep improving.