61 Evolutions in rectal cancer MRI staging and risk stratification in the Netherlands 4 Total N = 712 Part 1 Q4 2011–Q1 2014 N = 191 Part 2 Q1 2014– Q1 2016 N = 334 Part 3 Q2 2016– Q2 2018 N = 187 p value 11 Total number of nodes Reported 9.3% (66) 10.5% (20) 8.1% (27) 10.2% (19) 0.588 Not reported 90.7% (646) 89.5% (171) 91.9% (307) 89.8% (168) 12 Extramesorectal (lateral) nodes Reported 52.2% (372) 27.7% (53) 63.5% (212) 57.2% (107) <0.001 Not reported 47.8% (340) 72.3% (138) 36.6% (122) 42.8% (80) in cN+ cases# 27.7% (197) 39.3% (75) 21.0% (70) 27.8% (52) in cN- cases (N/A)# 14.5% (103) 15.7% (30) 13.5% (45) 15.0% (28) 13 Tumour deposits Reported 1.3% (9) 0.5% (1) 1.5% (5) 1.6% (3) 0.561 Not reported 98.7% (703) 99.5% (190) 98.5% (329) 98.4% (184) 14 EMVI Reported 28.0% (200) 4.7% (9) 36.2% (121) 37.4% (70) <0.001 Not reported 72.0% (512) 95.3% (182) 63.8% (213) 62.5% (117) in cT3-4 tumours# 54.4% (387) 72.8% (139) 46.4% (155) 49.7% (93) in T1-2 tumours (N/A)# 16.3% (116) 19.9% (38) 16.5% (55) 12.3% (23) *Examples of prose descriptions from which cT-stage could be derived: “Tumour limited to bowel wall,” “Tumour extending into perirectal fat,” “Tumour growing into peritoneum,” etc **MRF invasion was categorized as inconclusive in case of unclear descriptions such as “close margin” #In some cases, sub-categorization was not feasible not feasible due to missing information on cT-stage or cN-stage, respectively. Table 2 Continued
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw