Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34605968›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022

Multi-practice survey on MR imaging practice patterns in rectal cancer in the United States.

David D B Bates, Hiram Shaish, Marc J Gollub, Mukesh Harisinghani, Chandana Lall, Shannon P Sheedy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David D B BatesDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA. batesd@mskcc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3105-156X
Hiram ShaishDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Marc J GollubDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Mukesh HarisinghaniDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Chandana LallDepartment of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Shannon P SheedyDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate practice patterns related to MR technique and structured reporting for MRI of rectal cancer at academic centers and private practice groups in the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A survey developed by active members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease Focus Panel was sent to 100 private practice and 189 academic radiology groups. The survey asked targeted questions about practice demographics and utilization, technical MR parameters and reporting practices related to MRI of rectal cancer. The results were analyzed using software in an online survey program.

resultsThe survey received 47 unique responses from academic (37/47, 78.7%) and private practice (10/47, 21.3%) groups. Most practices report using rectal MR for staging newly diagnosed rectal cancer always (29/47, 61.7%), and less than half always do so for re-staging after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (20/47, 42.6%). Most groups perform between 1 to 5 rectal MR studies for baseline staging per week (32/47, 68.1%) and most groups perform 0 to 2 MR studies for re-staging per week (27/47, 57.4%). Regarding patient preparation and MR technical parameters, there is variability, but a few key points include most practices (27/47, 57.4%) acquire axial T2-weighted images at a slice thickness of 3 mm or less, axial T2-weighted images with 2D acquisition (30/47, 63.8%), a T2-weighted axial oblique sequence through the tumor (43/47, 91.5%), and T2-weighted images without fat suppression (37/47, 78.7%). Equal numbers of groups report using a maximal b-value less than 1000 s/mm

conclusionThere is considerable technical heterogeneity among respondents' answers and reporting practices in MR for rectal cancer, and most of the groups report reading only a modest number of studies per week. Our findings suggest there may be room for improvement in terms of radiologist education for performance and standardization of clinical practice for MR imaging of rectal cancer.

Indexed as

Rectal NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAnal cancerImagingMRIRectal cancerStandardized reportingTemplate

Identifiers

PMID34605968
PMCPMC9671700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.