Imaging of Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Survey Results and Expert Opinion from the Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology.

The role and method of image-based staging of anal cancer has evolved with the rapid development of newer imaging modalities and the need to address the rising incidence of this rare cancer. In 2014, the European Society of Medical Oncology mandated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for anal cancer and subsequently other societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network followed suit with similar recommendations. Nevertheless, great variability exists from center to center and even within individual centers. Notably, this is in stark contrast to the imaging of the anatomically nearby rectal cancer. As participating team members for this malignancy, we embarked on a comprehensive literature review of anal cancer imaging to understand the relative merits of these new technologies which developed after computed tomography (CT), e.g., MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). The results of this literature review helped to inform our next stage: questionnaire development regarding the imaging of anal cancer. Next, we distributed the questionnaire to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Rectal and Anal Disease-Focused Panel, a group of abdominal radiologists with special interest, experience, and expertise in rectal and anal cancer, to provide expert radiologist opinion on the appropriate anal cancer imaging strategy. In our expert opinion survey, experts advocated the use of MRI in general (65% overall and 91-100% for primary staging clinical scenarios) and acknowledged the superiority of PET/CT for nodal assessment (52-56% agreement for using PET/CT in primary staging clinical scenarios compared to 30% for using MRI). We therefore support the use of MRI and PET and suggest further exploration of PET/MRI as an optimal combined evaluation. Our questionnaire responses emphasized the heterogeneity in imaging practice as performed at numerous academic cancer centers across the United States and underscore the need for further reconciliation and establishment of best imaging practice guidelines for optimized patient care in anal cancer.

CT Imaging Findings in Patients with Ovarian Cancer and Acute Abdominal Symptoms: Experience at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomography (CT) findings in patients with ovarian cancer presenting to a comprehensive cancer center's urgent care unit with acute abdominal symptoms. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with ovarian cancer who underwent abdominal CT at a comprehensive cancer center's urgent care unit between January 1, 2018, and January 14, 2020, due to acute abdominal symptoms. Two abdominal radiologists reviewed the abdominal CT reports, categorizing imaging findings as follows: (a) no new or acute finding, (b) new or increased bowel or gastric obstruction, (c) new or increased ascites, (d) new or increased peritoneal carcinomatosis, (e) new or increased nonperitoneal metastases, (f) new inflammatory or infectious changes, (g) new or increased hydronephrosis, (h) new or increased biliary dilatation, (i) new vascular complications, or (j) new bowel perforation. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 22-87) underwent a total of 259 abdominal CT scans, of which 217/259 (83.8%) scans were found to have new or increased findings. A total of 115/259 (44.4%) scans had only one finding while 102/259 (39.4%) scans had 2 or more findings. Altogether, 382 new or increased findings were detected: findings were most commonly related to bowel or gastric obstruction (92/382, 24.1%) with small bowel obstruction being the most common finding (80/382, 20.9%); ascites (78/382, 20.4%); peritoneal carcinomatosis (62/382, 16.2%); and nonperitoneal metastases (62/382, 16.2%). Inflammatory or infectious findings accounted for 30/382 (7.9%) findings. CONCLUSION: Most patients with ovarian cancer presenting with acute abdominal had relevant positive findings on abdominal CT, with small bowel obstruction being the most common finding.

Meaningful words in rectal MRI synoptic reports: How "polypoid" may be prognostic.

PURPOSE: This study explored the clinicopathologic outcomes of rectal tumor morphological descriptors used in a synoptic rectal MRI reporting template and determined that prognostic differences were observed. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center. Fifty patients with rectal tumors for whom the synoptic descriptor "polypoid" was chosen by three experienced radiologists were compared with ninety comparator patients with "partially circumferential" and "circumferential" rectal tumors. Two radiologists re-evaluated all cases. The outcome measures were agreement among two re-interpreting radiologists, clinical T staging with MRI (mrT) and descriptive nodal features, and degrees of wall attachment of tumors (on MRI) compared with pathological (p) T and N stage when available. RESULTS: Re-evaluation by two radiologists showed moderate to excellent agreement in tumor morphology, presence of a pedicle, and degree of wall attachment (k = 0.41-0.76) and excellent agreement on lymph node presence and size (ICC = 0.83-0.91). Statistically significant lower mrT stage was noted for polypoid morphology, wherein 98% were mrT1/2, while only 7% and 2% of partially circumferential and circumferential tumors respectively were mrT1/2. Pathologic T and N stages among the three morphologies also differed significantly, with only 14% of polypoid cases higher than stage pT2 compared to 48% of partially circumferential cases and 60% of circumferential cases. CONCLUSION: Using a "polypoid" morphology in rectal cancer MRI synoptic reports revealed a seemingly distinct phenotype with lower clinical and pathologic T and N stages when compared with alternative available descriptors. PRECIS: "Polypoid" morphology in rectal cancer confers a lower clinical and pathologic T and N stage and may be useful in determining whether to proceed with surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment.