| Title |
Use of magnetic resonance imaging in rectal cancer patients: Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) rectal cancer disease-focused panel (DFP) recommendations 2017
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Abdominal Radiology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00261-018-1642-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marc J. Gollub, Supreeta Arya, Regina GH Beets-Tan, Gregory dePrisco, Mithat Gonen, Kartik Jhaveri, Zahra Kassam, Harmeet Kaur, David Kim, Andrea Knezevic, Elena Korngold, Chandana Lall, Neeraj Lalwani, D. Blair Macdonald, Courtney Moreno, Stephanie Nougaret, Perry Pickhardt, Shannon Sheedy, Mukesh Harisinghani |
| Abstract |
To propose guidelines based on an expert-panel-derived unified approach to the technical performance, interpretation, and reporting of MRI for baseline and post-treatment staging of rectal carcinoma. A consensus-based questionnaire adopted with permission and modified from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiologists was sent to a 17-member expert panel from the Rectal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology containing 268 question parts. Consensus on an answer was defined as ≥ 70% agreement. Answers not reaching consensus (< 70%) were noted. Consensus was reached for 87% of items from which recommendations regarding patient preparation, technical performance, pulse sequence acquisition, and criteria for MRI assessment at initial staging and restaging exams and for MRI reporting were constructed. These expert consensus recommendations can be used as guidelines for primary and post-treatment staging of rectal cancer using MRI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 53% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |