Standardised reports with a template format are superior to free text reports: the case for rectal cancer reporting in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows accurate assessment and preoperative staging of rectal cancers. Therefore, complete MRI reports are vital to treatment planning. Significant variability may exist in their content and completeness. Template-style reporting can improve reporting standards, but its use is not widespread. Given the implications for treatment, we have evaluated current clinical practice amongst specialist gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists to measure the quality of rectal cancer staging MRI reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen United Kingdom (UK) colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary teams (CRC-MDTs) serving a population over 5 million were invited to submit up to 10 consecutive rectal cancer primary staging MRI reports from January 2016 for each radiologist participating in the CRC-MDT. Reports were compared to a reference standard based on recognised staging and prognostic factors influencing case management RESULTS: Four hundred ten primary staging reports were submitted from 41 of 42 (97.6%) eligible radiologists. Three hundred sixty reports met the inclusion criteria, of these, 81 (22.5%) used a template. Template report usage significantly increased recording of key data points versus non-template reports for extra-mural venous invasion (EMVI) status (98.8% v 51.6%, p < 0.01) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status (96.3% v 65.9%, p < 0.01). Local tumour stage (97.5% v 93.5%, NS) and nodal status (98.8% v 96.1%, NS) were reported and with similar frequency. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer primary staging reports do not meet published standards. Template-style reports have significant increases in the inclusion of key tumour descriptors. This study provides further support for their use to improve reporting standards and outcomes in rectal cancer. KEY POINTS: • MRI primary staging of rectal cancer requires detailed tumour descriptions as these alter the neoadjuvant and surgical treatments. • Currently, rectal cancer MRI reports in clinical practice do not provide sufficient detail on these tumour descriptors. • The use of template-style reports for primary staging of rectal cancer significantly improves report quality compared to free-text reports.

Radiologist and multidisciplinary team clinician opinions on the quality of MRI rectal cancer staging reports: how are we doing?

AIM: To evaluate the current opinion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports amongst specialist clinicians involved in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary teams (CRC MDTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Active participants at 16 UK CRC MDTs across a population of 5.7 million were invited to complete a questionnaire, this included 22 closed and three open questions. Closed questions used ordinal (Likert) scales to judge the subjective inclusion of tumour descriptors and impressions on the clarity and consistency of the MRI report. Open (free-text) questions allowed overall feedback and suggestions. RESULTS: A total of 69 participants completed the survey (21 radiologists and 48 other CRC MDT clinicians). Both groups highlighted that reports commonly omit the status of the circumferential resection margin (CRM; 83% versus 81% inclusion, other clinicians and radiologists, respectively, p>0.05), presence or absence of extra-mural venous invasion (EMVI; 67% versus 57% inclusion, p>0.05), and lymph node status (90% inclusion in both groups). Intra-radiologist agreement across MRI examinations is reported as 75% by other clinicians. Free-text comments included suggestions for template-style reports. CONCLUSION: Both groups recognise a proportion of MRI reports are suboptimal with key tumour descriptors omitted. There are also concerns around the presentation style of MRI reports and inter- and intra-radiologist report variability. The widespread implementation of standardised report templates may improve completeness and clarity of MRI reports for rectal cancer and thus clinical management and outcomes in rectal cancer.