Standardized diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors: an update regarding the situation in Germany

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the current status of the diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors in Germany by means of a survey of the oncological imaging working group of the German Radiological Society (DRG) with a focus on the CT protocols being used.

Materials and Method

Radiologists working in outpatient or inpatient care in Germany were invited. The survey was conducted between 10/2022 and 06/2023 using the SurveyMonkey web tool. Questions related to gastrointestinal cancer were asked with regard to the commonly used imaging modalities, body coverage, and contrast agent phases in CT as well as the use of oral or rectal contrast. The results of the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Clear differences were identified regarding the acquired contrast phases in relation to the place of work – outpatient care, smaller hospitals, maximum care hospitals, or university hospitals. Variances were also recognized regarding oral and rectal contrast. Based on the results and international guidelines, proposals for CT protocols were derived.

Conclusion

CT protocols in Germany show a heterogeneous picture regarding acquired contrast phases, as well as oral and rectal contrast for the staging of gastrointestinal cancer. Clear recommendations in the respective guidelines would aid in quality assurance and comparability between different centers.

Key Points

• The examination protocols for the staging of gastrointestinal tumors are heterogeneous in Germany.

• The application of oral and rectal contrast is handled differently at the various radiological centers.

• Standardization of imaging should be targeted.

Citation Format

• Gerwing M, Ristow I, Afat S et al. Standardized diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors: an update regarding the situation in Germany. Rofo 2025; 197: 657–668

Keywords

Esophageal cancer - Gastric cancer - Colorectal cancer - contrast agents - CT protocol

• References

• 1 Krebs in Deutschland für 2019/2020. In: 14. ed. Robert Koch-Institut und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e.V.; 2021: Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten im Robert Koch-Institut: Datenbankabfrage mit Schätzung der Inzidenz, Prävalenz und des Überlebens von Krebs in Deutschland auf Basis der epidemiologischen Landeskrebsregisterdaten. Mortalitätsdaten bereitgestellt vom Statistischen Bundesamt.
• 2 Mang T, Lampichler K, Scharitzer M. CT colonography : Technique and indications. Radiologie (Heidelb) 2023; 63: 418-428
• 3 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): Diagnostik und Therapie der Plattenepithelkarzinome und Adenokarzinome des Ösophagus, Langversion 4.0, AWMF-Registernummer: 021–023OL. 2023
• 4 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF):S3-Leitlinie Magenkarzinom, Langversion 2.0, AWMF Registernummer: 032/009OL. 2019
• 5 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom, Langversion 2.1, AWMF Registrierungsnummer: 021/007OL. 2019
• 6 Obermannova R, Alsina M, Cervantes A. et al. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: 992-1004
• 7 Cervantes A, Adam R, Rosello S. et al. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2023; 34: 10-32
• 8 SSK. Orientierungshilfe für bildgebende Verfahren, 3. überarbeitete Auflage. 2019
• 9 Bierbaum V, Bobeth C, Roessler M. et al. Treatment in certified cancer centers is related to better survival in patients with colon and rectal cancer: evidence from a large German cohort study. World J Surg Oncol 2024; 22: 11
• 10 Lordick F, Carneiro F, Cascinu S. et al. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: 1005-1020
• 11 Jayaprakasam VS, Yeh R, Ku GY. et al. Role of Imaging in Esophageal Cancer Management in 2020: Update for Radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 215: 1072-1084
• 12 Giandola T, Maino C, Marrapodi G. et al. Imaging in Gastric Cancer: Current Practice and Future Perspectives. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13
• 13 Attenberger UI, Clasen S, Ghadimi M. et al. Importance and Qualitative Requirements of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Therapy Planning in Rectal Cancer – Interdisciplinary Recommendations of AIO, ARO, ACO and the German Radiological Society. Fortschr Röntgenstr : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Röntgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 2021; 193: 513-520
• 14 Herold A, Wassipaul C, Weber M. et al. Added value of quantitative, multiparametric 18F-FDG PET/MRI in the locoregional staging of rectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 50: 205-217
• 15 Seto S, Tsujikawa T, Sawai K. et al. Feasibility of [18F]FDG PET/MRI with Early-Delayed and Extended PET as One-Stop Imaging for Staging and Predicting Metastasis in Rectal Cancer. Oncology 2022; 100: 212-220
• 16 Umeoka S, Koyama T, Watanabe G. et al. Preoperative Local Staging of Esophageal Carcinoma Using Dual-Phase Contrast-Enhanced Imaging With Multi-Detector Row Computed Tomography: Value of the Arterial Phase Images. Journal of computer assisted tomography 2010; 34: 406-412
• 17 Fowler KJ, Kaur H. Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria((R)) Pretreatment Staging of Colorectal Cancer. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR 2017; 14: S234-S244
• 18 Tamandl D, Mang T, Ba-Ssalamah A. Imaging of colorectal cancer – the clue to individualized treatment. Innov Surg Sci 2018; 3: 3-15
• 19 Ch’en IY, Katz DS, Jeffrey RB. et al. Do arterial phase helical CT images improve detection or characterization of colorectal liver metastases?. Journal of computer assisted tomography 1997; 21: 391-397
• 20 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: 413-420
• 21 Wicherts DA, de Haas RJ, van Kessel CS. et al. Incremental value of arterial and equilibrium phase compared to hepatic venous phase CT in the preoperative staging of colorectal liver metastases: an evaluation with different reference standards. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 305-311
• 22 Sica GT, Ji H, Ros PR. CT and MR imaging of hepatic metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 691-698
• 23 Unterrainer M, Deroose CM, Herrmann K. et al. Imaging standardisation in metastatic colorectal cancer: A joint EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR expert consensus recommendation. Eur J Cancer 2022; 176: 193-206
• 24 Schreyer AG, Wessling J, Grenacher L. Current Practice vs. Guideline Based Imaging in Abdominal Radiology in the German Speaking Area: Results of an Online Survey. Fortschr Röntgenstr : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Röntgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 2016; 188: 268-279
• 25 Pickhardt PJ. Positive Oral Contrast Material for Abdominal CT: Current Clinical Indications and Areas of Controversy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 215: 69-78
• 26 de Wit PAM, Tielbeek JAW, van Diepen PR. et al. A prospective study comparing water only with positive oral contrast in patients undergoing abdominal CT scan. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 6813
• 27 Thati SS, Nagegowda R, Sakalecha AK. et al. Comparison of Mannitol, Water, and Iodine-Based Oral Contrast in the Evaluation of the Bowel by Multi-Detector Computed Tomography. Cureus 2022; 14: e24316
• 28 Lee S, Surabhi VR, Kassam Z. et al. Imaging of colon and rectal cancer. Curr Probl Cancer 2023; 47: 100970