AC Search
Document Navigator
Staging and Disease Monitoring of Colon Cancer and Appendiceal Cancer
Variant: 1
Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Relative Radiation Level |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT chest with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | O |
| CT chest without IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT chest without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
Variant: 2
Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Relative Radiation Level |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT chest with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | O |
| CT chest without IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT chest without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
Variant: 3
Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Relative Radiation Level |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT chest with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | O |
| CT chest without IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT chest without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
Panel Members
Elena K. Korngold, MDa; Avinash R. Kambadakone, MDb; Jordan Berlin, MDc; Brooks D. Cash, MDd; Bari Dane, MDe; Nader Hanna, MDf; Natally Horvat, g; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MDh; David H. Kim, MDi; Yun Rose Li, MD, PhDj; Peter S. Liu, MDk; Jason A. Pietryga, MDl; Gary M. Plant, MDm; Cynthia S. Santillan, MDn; Steven D. Wexner, MD, PhDo; Kathryn J. Fowler, MDp.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
D. CT chest with IV contrast
D. CT chest with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
F. CT chest without IV contrast
F. CT chest without IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
H. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
H. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Adult. Staging of colon cancer.
K. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
K. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
D. CT chest with IV contrast
D. CT chest with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
F. CT chest without IV contrast
F. CT chest without IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
H. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
H. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 2: Adult. Colon cancer. Posttreatment evaluation.
K. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
K. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
D. CT chest with IV contrast
D. CT chest with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast
E. CT chest without and with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
F. CT chest without IV contrast
F. CT chest without IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
G. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
H. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
H. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
I. MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 3: Adult. Appendiceal cancer. Disease monitoring during treatment or posttreatment evaluation.
K. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
K. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Summary of Highlights
Supporting Documents
The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.
For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.
Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause
The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.
Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions
|
Appropriateness Category Name |
Appropriateness Rating |
Appropriateness Category Definition |
|
Usually Appropriate |
7, 8, or 9 |
The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. |
|
May Be Appropriate |
4, 5, or 6 |
The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal. |
|
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) |
5 |
The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned. |
|
Usually Not Appropriate |
1, 2, or 3 |
The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable. |
Relative Radiation Level Information
Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.
|
Relative Radiation Level Designations |
||
|
Relative Radiation Level* |
Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range |
Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range |
|
O |
0 mSv |
0 mSv |
|
☢ |
<0.1 mSv |
<0.03 mSv |
|
☢☢ |
0.1-1 mSv |
0.03-0.3 mSv |
|
☢☢☢ |
1-10 mSv |
0.3-3 mSv |
|
☢☢☢☢ |
10-30 mSv |
3-10 mSv |
|
☢☢☢☢☢ |
30-100 mSv |
10-30 mSv |
|
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.” |
||
References
| 1. | Morton D, Seymour M, Magill L, et al. Preoperative Chemotherapy for Operable Colon Cancer: Mature Results of an International Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:1541-52. | |
| 2. | Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 17(6):1471-4, 2010 Jun. | |
| 3. | Hanna N, Hanna AN, Hanna DN. AJCC Cancer Staging System Version 9: Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2024;31:2177-80. | |
| 4. | Khan F, Vogel RI, Diep GK, Tuttle TM, Lou E. Prognostic factors for survival in advanced appendiceal cancers. Cancer Biomark 2016;17:457-62. | |
| 5. | Glasgow SC, Gaertner W, Stewart D, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Appendiceal Neoplasms. Dis Colon Rectum 2019;62:1425-38. | |
| 6. | Govaerts K, Chandrakumaran K, Carr NJ, et al. Single centre guidelines for radiological follow-up based on 775 patients treated by cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei. Eur J Surg Oncol. 44(9):1371-1377, 2018 09. | |
| 7. | Smeenk RM, van Velthuysen ML, Verwaal VJ, Zoetmulder FA. Appendiceal neoplasms and pseudomyxoma peritonei: a population based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008;34:196-201. | |
| 8. | Kulemann V, Schima W, Tamandl D, et al. Preoperative detection of colorectal liver metastases in fatty liver: MDCT or MRI? Eur J Radiol 2011;79:e1-6. | |
| 9. | van Kessel CS, van Leeuwen MS, van den Bosch MA, et al. Accuracy of multislice liver CT and MRI for preoperative assessment of colorectal liver metastases after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Dig Surg. 2011; 28(1):36-43. | |
| 10. | Cance WG, Cohen AM, Enker WE, Sigurdson ER. Predictive value of a negative computed tomographic scan in 100 patients with rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34(9):748-751. | |
| 11. | Valls C, Andia E, Sanchez A, et al. Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: preoperative detection and assessment of resectability with helical CT. Radiology 2001;218:55-60. | |
| 12. | Numminen K, Isoniemi H, Halavaara J, et al. Preoperative assessment of focal liver lesions: multidetector computed tomography challenges magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol 2005;46:9-15. | |
| 13. | Onishi H, Murakami T, Kim T, et al. Hepatic metastases: detection with multi-detector row CT, SPIO-enhanced MR imaging, and both techniques combined. Radiology 2006;239:131-8. | |
| 14. | Soyer P, Poccard M, Boudiaf M, et al. Detection of hypovascular hepatic metastases at triple-phase helical CT: sensitivity of phases and comparison with surgical and histopathologic findings. Radiology 2004;231:413-20. | |
| 15. | Brouquet A, Abdalla EK, Kopetz S, et al. High survival rate after two-stage resection of advanced colorectal liver metastases: response-based selection and complete resection define outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):1083-1090. | |
| 16. | Shindoh J, Loyer EM, Kopetz S, et al. Optimal morphologic response to preoperative chemotherapy: an alternate outcome end point before resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4566-72. | |
| 17. | Malmstrom ML, Brisling S, Klausen TW, et al. Staging with computed tomography of patients with colon cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 33(1):9-17, 2018 Jan. | |
| 18. | Rollven E, Blomqvist L, Oistamo E, Hjern F, Csanaky G, Abraham-Nordling M. Morphological predictors for lymph node metastases on computed tomography in colon cancer. Abdom Radiol. 44(5):1712-1721, 2019 05. | |
| 19. | Fernandez LM, Parlade AJ, Wasser EJ, et al. How Reliable Is CT Scan in Staging Right Colon Cancer?. Dis Colon Rectum. 62(8):960-964, 2019 08. | |
| 20. | Olsen ASF, Gundestrup AK, Kleif J, Thanon T, Bertelsen CA. Accuracy of preoperative staging with multidetector computed tomography in colon cancer. Colorectal Dis. 23(3):680-688, 2021 Mar. | |
| 21. | Hong EK, Landolfi F, Castagnoli F, et al. CT for lymph node staging of Colon cancer: not only size but also location and number of lymph node count. Abdom Radiol. 46(9):4096-4105, 2021 09. | |
| 22. | Komono A, Kajitani R, Matsumoto Y, et al. Preoperative T staging of advanced colorectal cancer by computed tomography colonography. Int J Colorectal Dis. 36(11):2489-2496, 2021 Nov. | |
| 23. | Kim S, Huh JW, Lee WY, et al. Oncologic outcomes of pathologic T4 and T3 colon cancer patients diagnosed with clinical T4 stage disease using preoperative computed tomography scan. Surg Oncol. 41:101749, 2022 May. | |
| 24. | Wetterholm E, Rosen R, Rahman M, Ronnow CF. CT is unreliable in locoregional staging of early colon cancer: A nationwide registry-based study. Scand J Surg. 112(1):33-40, 2023 Mar. | |
| 25. | Kim YT, Min JH, Choi KH, Kim H. Colon cancer microsatellite instability influences computed tomography assessment of regional lymph node morphology and diagnostic performance. Eur J Radiol. 154:110396, 2022 Sep. | |
| 26. | Hong EK, Chalabi M, Landolfi F, et al. Colon cancer CT staging according to mismatch repair status: Comparison and suggestion of imaging features for high-risk colon cancer. Eur J Cancer. 174:165-175, 2022 10. | |
| 27. | Horvat N, Raj A, Liu S, et al. CT Colonography in Preoperative Staging of Colon Cancer: Evaluation of FOxTROT Inclusion Criteria for Neoadjuvant Therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 212(1):94-102, 2019 01. | |
| 28. | Ao T, Kajiwara Y, Yamada K, et al. Cancer-induced spiculation on computed tomography: a significant preoperative prognostic factor for colorectal cancer. SURG. TODAY. 49(7):629-636, 2019 Jul. | |
| 29. | Guan Z, Zhang XY, Li XT, et al. Correlation and prognostic value of CT-detected extramural venous invasion and pathological lymph-vascular invasion in colon cancer. Abdom Radiol. 47(4):1232-1243, 2022 04. | |
| 30. | Seo N, Lim JS, Chung T, Lee JM, Min BS, Kim MJ. Preoperative computed tomography assessment of circumferential resection margin in retroperitonealized colon cancer predicts disease-free survival. Eur Radiol. 33(4):2757-2767, 2023 Apr. | |
| 31. | O'Leary MP, Parrish AB, Tom CM, MacLaughlin BW, Petrie BA. Staging Rectal Cancer: The Utility of Chest Radiograph and Chest Computed Tomography. Am Surg. 82(10):1005-1008, 2016 Oct. | |
| 32. | Kronawitter U, Kemeny NE, Heelan R, Fata F, Fong Y. Evaluation of chest computed tomography in the staging of patients with potentially resectable liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1999;86:229-35. | |
| 33. | Grossmann I, Avenarius JK, Mastboom WJ, Klaase JM. Preoperative staging with chest CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma: not as a routine procedure. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:2045-50. | |
| 34. | van den Broek JJ, van Gestel T, Kol SQ, van Geel AM, Geenen RWF, Schreurs WH. Dealing with indeterminate pulmonary nodules in colorectal cancer patients; a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 47(11):2749-2756, 2021 Nov. | |
| 35. | Christoffersen MW, Bulut O, Jess P. The diagnostic value of indeterminate lung lesions on staging chest computed tomographies in patients with colorectal cancer. Dan Med Bull 2010;57:A4093. | |
| 36. | Choi DJ, Kwak JM, Kim J, Woo SU, Kim SH. Preoperative chest computerized tomography in patients with locally advanced mid or lower rectal cancer: its role in staging and impact on treatment strategy. J Surg Oncol 2010;102:588-92. | |
| 37. | McQueen AS, Scott J. CT staging of colorectal cancer: what do you find in the chest? Clin Radiol 2012;67:352-8. | |
| 38. | Ramos E, Valls C, Martinez L, et al. Preoperative staging of patients with liver metastases of colorectal carcinoma. Does PET/CT really add something to multidetector CT? Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:2654-61. | |
| 39. | Shin SS, Jeong YY, Min JJ, Kim HR, Chung TW, Kang HK. Preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: CT vs. integrated FDG PET/CT. [Review] [41 refs]. Abdom Imaging. 33(3):270-7, 2008 May-Jun. | |
| 40. | Wong GYM, Kumar R, Beeke C, et al. Survival Outcomes for Patients With Indeterminate 18FDG-PET Scan for Extrahepatic Disease Before Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Prospectively Maintained Database to Analyze Survival Outcomes for Patients With Indeterminate Extrahepatic Disease on 18FDG-PET Scan Before Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Surgery. 267(5):929-935, 2018 05. | |
| 41. | Briggs RH, Chowdhury FU, Lodge JP, Scarsbrook AF. Clinical impact of FDG PET-CT in patients with potentially operable metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Radiol. 66(12):1167-74, 2011 Dec. | |
| 42. | Eglinton T, Luck A, Bartholomeusz D, Varghese R, Lawrence M. Positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the initial staging of primary rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:667-73. | |
| 43. | Llamas-Elvira JM, Rodriguez-Fernandez A, Gutierrez-Sainz J, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:859-67. | |
| 44. | Baik H, Lee SM, Seo SH, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography/computed tomography for adjuvant chemotherapy of colon cancer. ANZ J Surg. 88(6):587-591, 2018 Jun. | |
| 45. | Daza JF, Solis NM, Parpia S, et al. A meta-analysis exploring the role of PET and PET-CT in the management of potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 45(8):1341-1348, 2019 Aug. | |
| 46. | Serrano PE, Gu CS, Moulton CA, et al. Effect of PET-CT on disease recurrence and management in patients with potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial. J Surg Oncol. 121(6):1001-1006, 2020 May. | |
| 47. | Vogel JD, Felder SI, Bhama AR, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Colon Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2022;65:148-77. | |
| 48. | Guney IB, Teke Z, Kucuker KA, Yalav O. A prospective comparative study of contrast-enhanced CT, contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer patients. Ann Ital Chir. 91:658-667, 2020. | |
| 49. | Mirshahvalad SA, Hinzpeter R, Kohan A, et al. Diagnostic performance of [18F]-FDG PET/MR in evaluating colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 49(12):4205-4217, 2022 Oct. | |
| 50. | Ren Q, Chen Y, Shao X, Guo L, Xu X. Lymph nodes primary staging of colorectal cancer in 18F-FDG PET/MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur J Med Res. 28(1):162, 2023 May 04. | |
| 51. | Kersjes W, Mayer E, Buchenroth M, Schunk K, Fouda N, Cagil H. Diagnosis of pulmonary metastases with turbo-SE MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 1997; 7(8):1190-1194. | |
| 52. | de Galiza Barbosa F, Geismar JH, Delso G, et al. Pulmonary nodule detection in oncological patients - Value of respiratory-triggered, periodically rotated overlapping parallel T2-weighted imaging evaluated with PET/CT-MR. Eur J Radiol 2018;98:165-70. | |
| 53. | Berger-Kulemann V, Schima W, Baroud S, et al. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MR imaging versus multidetector-row CT in the detection of colorectal metastases in fatty liver using intraoperative ultrasound and histopathology as a standard of reference. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38:670-6. | |
| 54. | Hammerstingl R, Huppertz A, Breuer J, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: comparison with intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 2008;18:457-67. | |
| 55. | Kim YK, Park G, Kim CS, Yu HC, Han YM. Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for the detection and characterisation of liver metastases: comparison with multidetector-row CT. Br J Radiol. 85(1013):539-47, 2012 May. | |
| 56. | Knowles B, Welsh FK, Chandrakumaran K, John TG, Rees M. Detailed liver-specific imaging prior to pre-operative chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases reduces intra-hepatic recurrence and the need for a repeat hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 2012;14:298-309. | |
| 57. | Koh DM, Collins DJ, Wallace T, Chau I, Riddell AM. Combining diffusion-weighted MRI with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI improves the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Br J Radiol 2012;85:980-9. | |
| 58. | Macera A, Lario C, Petracchini M, et al. Staging of colorectal liver metastases after preoperative chemotherapy. Diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI sequences increases sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. Eur Radiol. 23(3):739-47, 2013 Mar. | |
| 59. | Kim SH, Lee JM, Hong SH, et al. Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy. Radiology 2009;253:116-25. | |
| 60. | Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1622-35. | |
| 61. | Sugita R, Ito K, Fujita N, Takahashi S. Diffusion-weighted MRI in abdominal oncology: clinical applications. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:832-6. | |
| 62. | Granata V, Fusco R, de Lutio di Castelguidone E, et al. Diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI versus multidetector CT in the assessment of colorectal liver metastases compared to hepatic resection. BMC Gastroenterol. 19(1):129, 2019 Jul 24. | |
| 63. | Koh FHX, Tan KK, Teo LLS, Ang BWL, Thian YL. Prospective comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in colorectal cancer staging. ANZ J Surg. 88(6):E498-E502, 2018 Jun. | |
| 64. | Kim HJ, Lee SS, Byun JH, et al. Incremental value of liver MR imaging in patients with potentially curable colorectal hepatic metastasis detected at CT: a prospective comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging, and a combination of both MR techniques. Radiology 2015;274:712-22. | |
| 65. | Zhang H, Dai W, Fu C, et al. Diagnostic value of whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for detection of peritoneal metastases in colorectal malignancy. Cancer Biol Med 2018;15:165-70. | |
| 66. | van 't Sant I, van Eden WJ, Engbersen MP, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI assessment of the peritoneal cancer index before cytoreductive surgery. Br J Surg. 106(4):491-498, 2019 03. | |
| 67. | Dresen RC, De Vuysere S, De Keyzer F, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for operability assessment in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases. Cancer Imaging 2019;19:1. | |
| 68. | Engbersen MP, Aalbers AGJ, Van't Sant-Jansen I, et al. Extent of Peritoneal Metastases on Preoperative DW-MRI is Predictive of Disease-Free and Overall Survival for CRS/HIPEC Candidates with Colorectal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 27(9):3516-3524, 2020 Sep. | |
| 69. | Engbersen MP, Rijsemus CJV, Nederend J, et al. Dedicated MRI staging versus surgical staging of peritoneal metastases in colorectal cancer patients considered for CRS-HIPEC; the DISCO randomized multicenter trial. BMC Cancer. 21(1):464, 2021 Apr 26. | |
| 70. | van 't Sant I, Nerad E, Rijsemus CJV, et al. Seeing the whole picture: Added value of MRI for extraperitoneal findings in CRS-HIPEC candidates. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 48(2):462-469, 2022 Feb. | |
| 71. | Taylor SA, Mallett S, Beare S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective Streamline C trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 4(7):529-537, 2019 07. | |
| 72. | Taylor SA, Mallett S, Miles A, et al. Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 23(66):1-270, 2019 12. | |
| 73. | Park SY, Cho SH, Lee MA, et al. Diagnostic performance of MRI- versus MDCT-categorized T3cd/T4 for identifying high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancers: a pilot study. Abdom Radiol. 44(5):1675-1685, 2019 05. | |
| 74. | Bonifacio C, Vigano L, Felisaz P, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging and loco-regional N staging of patients with colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 45(3):347-352, 2019 03. | |
| 75. | Liu LH, Lv H, Wang ZC, Rao SX, Zeng MS. Performance comparison between MRI and CT for local staging of sigmoid and descending colon cancer. Eur J Radiol. 121:108741, 2019 Dec. | |
| 76. | Song Y, Wang Y, An J, Fu P. Local Staging of Colon Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Analysis for Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and by Experience. Cancer Invest. 39(5):379-389, 2021 May. | |
| 77. | Rafaelsen SR, Dam C, Vagn-Hansen C, et al. CT and 3 Tesla MRI in the TN Staging of Colon Cancer: A Prospective, Blind Study. Curr. oncol.. 29(2):1069-1079, 2022 02 13. | |
| 78. | Wille-Jorgensen P, Syk I, Smedh K, et al. Effect of More vs Less Frequent Follow-up Testing on Overall and Colorectal Cancer-Specific Mortality in Patients With Stage II or III Colorectal Cancer: The COLOFOL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 319(20):2095-2103, 2018 05 22. | |
| 79. | Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J, et al. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer 2003;3:26. | |
| 80. | Spatz J, Holl G, Sciuk J, Anthuber M, Arnholdt HM, Markl B. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy affects staging of colorectal liver metastasis--a comparison of PET, CT and intraoperative ultrasound. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011;26:165-71. | |
| 81. | Moore A, Ulitsky O, Ben-Aharon I, et al. Early PET-CT in patients with pathological stage III colon cancer may improve their outcome: Results from a large retrospective study. Cancer Med. 7(11):5470-5477, 2018 11. | |
| 82. | Capirci C, Rubello D, Pasini F, et al. The role of dual-time combined 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the staging and restaging workup of locally advanced rectal cancer, treated with preoperative chemoradiation therapy and radical surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1461-9. | |
| 83. | Borello A, Russolillo N, Lo Tesoriere R, Langella S, Guerra M, Ferrero A. Diagnostic performance of the FDG-PET/CT in patients with resected mucinous colorectal liver metastases. Surgeon Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh & Ireland. 19(5):e140-e145, 2021 Oct. | |
| 84. | Amorim BJ, Hong TS, Blaszkowsky LS, et al. Clinical impact of PET/MR in treated colorectal cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 46(11):2260-2269, 2019 Oct. | |
| 85. | Kang SK, Reinhold C, Atri M, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging and Follow-Up of Ovarian Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S198-S207. | |
| 86. | Sugarbaker PH, Sardi A, Brown G, Dromain C, Rousset P, Jelinek JS. Concerning CT features used to select patients for treatment of peritoneal metastases, a pictoral essay. Int J Hyperthermia 2017;33:497-504. | |
| 87. | Lim HK, Lee WJ, Kim SH, Kim B, Cho JM, Byun JY. Primary mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of the appendix: CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:1071-4. | |
| 88. | Wang H, Chen YQ, Wei R, et al. Appendiceal mucocele: A diagnostic dilemma in differentiating malignant from benign lesions with CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:W590-5. | |
| 89. | Koh JL, Yan TD, Glenn D, Morris DL. Evaluation of preoperative computed tomography in estimating peritoneal cancer index in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:327-33. | |
| 90. | Flicek K, Ashfaq A, Johnson CD, Menias C, Bagaria S, Wasif N. Correlation of Radiologic with Surgical Peritoneal Cancer Index Scores in Patients with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: How Well Can We Predict Resectability? J Gastrointest Surg 2016;20:307-12. | |
| 91. | Lee RM, Zaidi MY, Gamboa AC, et al. What is the Optimal Preoperative Imaging Modality for Assessing Peritoneal Cancer Index? An Analysis From the United States HIPEC Collaborative. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2020;19:e1-e7. | |
| 92. | Guaglio M, Sinukumar S, Kusamura S, et al. Clinical Surveillance After Macroscopically Complete Surgery for Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms (LAMN) with or Without Limited Peritoneal Spread: Long-Term Results in a Prospective Series. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:878-84. | |
| 93. | Solomon D, Bekhor E, Leigh N, et al. Surveillance of Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms With Peritoneal Metastases After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: Are 5 Years Enough? A Multisite Experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:147-53. | |
| 94. | Rohani P, Scotti SD, Shen P, et al. Use of FDG-PET imaging for patients with disseminated cancer of the appendix. Am Surg 2010;76:1338-44. | |
| 95. | Dromain C, Leboulleux S, Auperin A, et al. Staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis: enhanced CT vs. PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 2008;33:87-93. | |
| 96. | Sommariva A, Evangelista L, Pintacuda G, Cervino AR, Ramondo G, Rossi CR. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced CT combined with 18-FDG PET in patients selected for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Abdom Radiol (NY) 2018;43:1094-100. | |
| 97. | Squires MH 3rd, Volkan Adsay N, Schuster DM, et al. Octreoscan Versus FDG-PET for Neuroendocrine Tumor Staging: A Biological Approach. Ann Surg Oncol. 22(7):2295-301, 2015 Jul. | |
| 98. | Paspulati RM, Partovi S, Herrmann KA, Krishnamurthi S, Delaney CP, Nguyen NC. Comparison of hybrid FDG PET/MRI compared with PET/CT in colorectal cancer staging and restaging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:1415-25. | |
| 99. | Kang B, Lee JM, Song YS, et al. Added Value of Integrated Whole-Body PET/MRI for Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer: Comparison With Contrast-Enhanced MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:W10-20. | |
| 100. | Low RN, Sebrechts CP, Barone RM, Muller W. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peritoneal tumors: comparison with conventional MRI and surgical and histopathologic findings--a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:461-70. | |
| 101. | Dohan A, Hoeffel C, Soyer P, et al. Evaluation of the peritoneal carcinomatosis index with CT and MRI. Br J Surg 2017;104:1244-49. | |
| 102. | Low RN, Barone RM, Lee MJ. Surveillance MR imaging is superior to serum tumor markers for detecting early tumor recurrence in patients with appendiceal cancer treated with surgical cytoreduction and HIPEC. Ann Surg Oncol. 20(4):1074-81, 2013 Apr. | |
| 103. | National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022. | |
| 104. | American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf. |
Disclaimer
The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.