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

PURPOSE To 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. RESULTS The 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/mm2 (19/43, 44.2%) and 1000 s/mm2 or greater (19/43, 44.2%); the rest were unsure. A substantial portion of respondents do not use intravenous contrast (13/47, 27.7%). Most believe that structured report templates contribute to uniformity of reporting practices (39/47, 83.0%), though there is considerable heterogeneity in usage and included elements. CONCLUSION There 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.