ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsFourteen 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).ResultsConsensus 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.ConclusionsThese 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. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-017-5026-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

• These guidelines recommend standardised imaging for staging and restaging of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 abdominal imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by in 88 % of 236 items discussed.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe management of incidentally detected gallbladder polyps on radiological examinations is contentious. The incidental radiological finding of a gallbladder polyp can therefore be problematic for the radiologist and the clinician who referred the patient for the radiological examination. To address this a joint guideline was created by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery – European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE).MethodsA targeted literature search was performed and consensus guidelines were created using a series of Delphi questionnaires and a seven-point Likert scale.ResultsA total of three Delphi rounds were performed. Consensus regarding which patients should have cholecystectomy, which patients should have ultrasound follow-up and the nature and duration of that follow-up was established. The full recommendations as well as a summary algorithm are provided.ConclusionsThese expert consensus recommendations can be used as guidance when a gallbladder polyp is encountered in clinical practice.Key Points• Management of gallbladder polyps is contentious • Cholecystectomy is recommended for gallbladder polyps >10 mm • Management of polyps <10 mm depends on patient and polyp characteristics • Further research is required to determine optimal management of gallbladder polyps

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer is feasible and the results suggest that a major part of the patients can be spared adjuvant chemotherapy. Validation in a randomized trial is warranted.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of strain and shear-wave elastography for determining targets of varying stiffness in a phantom. The effect of target diameter on elastographic assessments and the effect of depth on shear-wave velocity were also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We examined 20 targets of varying diameters (2.5-16.7 mm) and stiffnesses (8, 14, 45, and 80 kPa) with a 4-9-MHz linear-array transducer. Targets were evaluated 10 times with three different methods-shear-wave elastography, strain ratio, and strain histogram analysis-yielding 600 evaluations. AUCs were calculated for data divided between different stiffnesses. A 1.5-6-MHz curved-array transducer was used to assess the effect of depth (3.5 vs 6 cm) on shear-wave elastography in 80 scans. Mixed model analysis was performed to assess the effect of target diameter and depth. RESULTS. Strain ratio and strain histogram AUCs were higher than the shear-wave velocity AUC (p < 0.001) in data divided as 80 versus 45, 14, and 8 kPa. In data divided as 80 and 45 versus 14 and 8 kPa, the methods were equal (p = 0.959 and p = 1.000, respectively). Strain ratios were superior (p = 0.030), whereas strain histograms were not significantly better (p = 0.083) than shear-wave elastography in data divided as 80, 45, and 14 versus 8 kPa. Target diameter had an effect on all three methods (p = 0.001). Depth had an effect on shear-wave velocity (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION. The ability to discern different target stiffnesses varies between shear-wave and strain elastography. Target diameter affected all methods. Shear-wave elastography is affected by target depth.

No abstract