Survey of rectal cancer MRI technique and reporting tumour descriptors in the UK: a multi-centre British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR) audit

•MRI is now routinely used to stage rectal cancer. •International societies recommendations vary for technique and reporting standards. •To date, current UK practice had not been evaluated. •This national audit shows that considerable variation in rectal cancer MRI exists. •Template reports improved key imaging feature documentation used to decide management. AIM To evaluate variation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique and reporting of rectal cancer staging examinations across the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective, multi-centre audit was undertaken of imaging protocols and information documented within consecutive MRI rectal cancer reports between March 2020 and August 2021, which were compared against American and European guidelines. Inclusion criteria included histologically proven rectal adenocarcinoma and baseline staging MRI rectum only. RESULTS Fully anonymised data from 924 MRI reports by 78 radiologists at 24 centres were evaluated. Thirty-two per cent of radiologists used template reporting, but these reports offered superior documentation of 13 out of 18 key tumour features compared to free-text reports including T-stage, relation to peritoneal reflection and mesorectal fascia (MRF), nodal status, and presence of extramural venous invasion (EMVI; p<0.027 in each). There was no significant differences in the remaining five features. Across all tumour locations, the tumour relationship to the MRF, the presence of EMVI, and the presence of tumour deposits were reported in 79.5%, 85.6%, and 44% of cases, respectively, and tumour, nodal, and distant metastatic stage documented in 94.4%, 97.7%, and 78.3%. In low rectal tumours, the relationship to the anal sphincter complex was reported in only 54.6%. CONCLUSION Considerable variation exists in rectal cancer MRI acquisition and reporting in this sample of UK centres. Inclusion of key radiological features in reports must be improved for risk stratification and treatment decisions. Template reporting is superior to free-text reporting. Routine adoption of standardised radiology practices should now be considered to improve standards to facilitate personalised precision treatment for patients to improve outcomes. To evaluate variation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique and reporting of rectal cancer staging examinations across the UK. A retrospective, multi-centre audit was undertaken of imaging protocols and information documented within consecutive MRI rectal cancer reports between March 2020 and August 2021, which were compared against American and European guidelines. Inclusion criteria included histologically proven rectal adenocarcinoma and baseline staging MRI rectum only. Fully anonymised data from 924 MRI reports by 78 radiologists at 24 centres were evaluated. Thirty-two per cent of radiologists used template reporting, but these reports offered superior documentation of 13 out of 18 key tumour features compared to free-text reports including T-stage, relation to peritoneal reflection and mesorectal fascia (MRF), nodal status, and presence of extramural venous invasion (EMVI; p<0.027 in each). There was no significant differences in the remaining five features. Across all tumour locations, the tumour relationship to the MRF, the presence of EMVI, and the presence of tumour deposits were reported in 79.5%, 85.6%, and 44% of cases, respectively, and tumour, nodal, and distant metastatic stage documented in 94.4%, 97.7%, and 78.3%. In low rectal tumours, the relationship to the anal sphincter complex was reported in only 54.6%. Considerable variation exists in rectal cancer MRI acquisition and reporting in this sample of UK centres. Inclusion of key radiological features in reports must be improved for risk stratification and treatment decisions. Template reporting is superior to free-text reporting. Routine adoption of standardised radiology practices should now be considered to improve standards to facilitate personalised precision treatment for patients to improve outcomes.