Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,063

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 access
Beets-Tan, Regina G. H., Lambregts, Doenja M. J., Maas, Monique, Bipat, Shandra, Barbaro, Brunella, Curvo-Semedo, Luís, Fenlon, Helen M., Gollub, Marc J., Gourtsoyianni, Sofia, Halligan, Steve, Hoeffel, Christine, Kim, Seung Ho, Laghi, Andrea, Maier, Andrea, Rafaelsen, Søren R., Stoker, Jaap, Taylor, Stuart A., Torkzad, Michael R., Blomqvist, Lennart·2018·European Radiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 1,063

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.