Search

Purpose: To investigate the differences in baseline staging of anal squamous cell carcinoma based on CT, MRI, and PET/CT, and the resultant impact on the radiation plan., Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent baseline pelvic MRI, CT, and PET/CT (all examinations within 3 weeks of each other) from January 2010 to April 2020. CTs, MRIs, and PET/CTs were re-interpreted by three separate radiologists. Several imaging features were assessed; tumor stage was determined based on the eight edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual; and T (tumor), N (node), and M (metastasis) categories were determined based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Radiologist assessments were then randomly presented to a radiation oncologist who formulated the radiation plan in a blinded fashion., Results: Across 28 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 31-78], T-category classification was significantly different on PET/CT compared to MRI and CT (p = 0.037 and 0.031, respectively). PET/CT staged a higher proportion of patients with T1/T2 disease (16/28, 57%) compared to MRI (11/28, 39%) and CT (10/28, 36%). MRI staged a higher proportion of patients with T3/T4 disease (14/28, 50%) compared to CT (12/28, 43%) and PET/CT (11/28, 39%). However, there was no significant difference between the three imaging modalities in terms of either N-category, AJCC staging, or NCCN TNM group classification, or in treatment planning., Conclusion: Our exploratory study showed that MRI demonstrated a higher proportion of T3/T4 tumors, while PET/CT demonstrated more T1/T2 tumors; however, MRI, CT, and PET/CT did not show any significant differences in AJCC and TNM group categories, nor was there any significant difference in treatment doses between them when assessed independently by an experienced radiation oncologist., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Anal cancer treatment response assessment can be challenging with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical evaluation considered essential. MRI, in particular, has shown to be useful for the assessment of treatment response, the detection of recurrent disease in follow up and surveillance, and the evaluation of possible post-treatment complications as well as complications from the tumor itself. In this review, we focus on the role of imaging, mainly MRI, in anal cancer treatment response assessment. We also describe the treatment complications that can occur, and the imaging findings associated with those complications., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Anal cancer is an uncommon malignancy. In addition to squamous cell carcinoma, there are a variety of other less common malignancies and benign pathologies that may afflict the anal canal, with which abdominal radiologists should be familiar. Abdominal radiologists should be familiar with the imaging features that can help distinguish different rare anal tumors beyond squamous cell carcinoma and that can aid in diagnosis therefore help steer management. This review discusses these uncommon pathologies with a focus on their imaging appearance, management, and prognosis., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To review existing structured MRI reports for primary staging of rectal cancer and create a new, freely available structured report based on multidisciplinary expert opinion and literature review., Methods: Twenty abdominal imaging experts from the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR)'s Disease Focused Panel (DFP) on Rectal and Anal Cancer completed a questionnaire and participated in a subsequent consensus meeting based on the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Twenty-two items were classified via a group survey as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" (defined by ≥ 70% consensus), or "needs group discussion" (defined by < 70% consensus). Certain items were also discussed with multidisciplinary team members from colorectal surgery, oncology and pathology., Results: After completion of the questionnaire, 16 (72%) items required further discussion (< 70% consensus). Following group discussion, consensus was achieved for 21 (95%) of the items. Based on the consensus meeting, a revised structured report was developed. The most significant modifications included (1) Exclusion of the T2/early T3 category; (2) Replacement of the term "circumferential resection margin (CRM)" with "mesorectal fascia (MRF)"; (3) A revised definition of "mucinous content"; (4) Creation of two distinct categories for suspicious lymph nodes (LNs) and tumor deposits; and (5) Classification of suspicious extra-mesorectal LNs by anatomic location., Conclusion: The SAR DFP on Rectal and Anal Cancer recommends using this newly updated reporting template for primary MRI staging of rectal cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Anal canal cancer is a rare disease and squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histologic subtype. Traditionally, anal cancer is imaged with CT and PET/CT for purposes of TNM staging. With the increased popularity of MRI for rectal cancer evaluation, MRI has become increasingly utilized for local staging of anal cancer. In this review, we focus on the necessary information radiologists need to know to understand this rare and unique disease and to be familiar with staging of anal cancer on MRI.