The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. METHODS: Fourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate' (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). RESULTS: Consensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template. CONCLUSIONS: These updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. KEY POINTS: • These guidelines present recommendations for staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 pelvic imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by the experts for 92 % of the 246 items discussed. • Practical guidelines for nodal staging are proposed. • A structured reporting template is presented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Dekker, E., Tanis, P. J., Vleugels, J. L. A., Kasi, P. M., & Wallace, M. B. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32319-0 · Cited by 4,974
Maas, M., Lambregts, D. M. J., Nelemans, P. J., Heijnen, L. A., Martens, M. H., Leijtens, J. W. A., Sosef, M., Hulsewé, K. W. E., Hoff, C., Breukink, S. O., et al. (2015) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4687-9 · Cited by 393
Self-citationEndometrial Cancer MRI staging: Updated Guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology
Nougaret, S., Horta, M., Sala, E., Lakhman, Y., Thomassin-Naggara, I., Kido, A., Masselli, G., Bharwani, N., Sadowski, E., Ertmer, A., et al. (2019) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5515-y · Cited by 283
Jha, P., Pōder, L., Bourgioti, C., Bharwani, N., Lewis, S., Kamath, A., Nougaret, S., Soyer, P., Weston, M., Castillo, R. P., et al. (2020) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06617-7 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- Authors
- Beets-Tan, R. G. H., Lambregts, D. M. J., Maas, M., Bipat, S., Barbaro, B., Curvo-Semedo, L., Fenlon, H. M., Gollub, M. J., Gourtsoyianni, S., Halligan, S., Hoeffel, C., Kim, S. H., Laghi, A., Maier, A., Rafaelsen, S. R., Stoker, J., Taylor, S. A., Torkzad, M. R., & Blomqvist, L.
- Venue
- European Radiology
- Published
- 2017-10-17
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1465-1475
- ISSN
- 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1084
- OpenAlex
- W2014274213
- Cited by
- 1,063
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 51.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2
- The paper
- Beets-Tan, R. G. H., Lambregts, D. M. J., Maas, M., Bipat, S., Barbaro, B., Curvo-Semedo, L., Fenlon, H. M., Gollub, M. J., Gourtsoyianni, S., Halligan, S., Hoeffel, C., Kim, S. H., Laghi, A., Maier, A., Rafaelsen, S. R., Stoker, J., Taylor, S. A., Torkzad, M. R., & Blomqvist, L. (2018). Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.