Title |
ACR Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS): A White Paper of the ACR NI-RADS Committee
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of the American College of Radiology, July 2018
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.006 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ashley H. Aiken, Tanya J. Rath, Yoshimi Anzai, Barton F. Branstetter, Jenny K. Hoang, Richard H. Wiggins, Amy F. Juliano, Christine Glastonbury, C. Douglas Phillips, Richard Brown, Patricia A. Hudgins |
Abstract |
Imaging surveillance after treatment for head and neck cancer is challenging because of complicated resection and reconstruction surgery, in addition to posttreatment changes from radiation and chemotherapy. The posttreatment neck is often a source of anxiety for diagnostic radiologists, leading to suboptimal reporting and no standardized guidance for next management steps. Nevertheless, imaging is critical for detecting submucosal recurrences in a timely manner, so that patients remain candidates for salvage surgery. In 2016, the ACR convened the Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS) Committee with the goals to (1) provide recommendations for surveillance imaging; (2) produce a lexicon to distinguish between benign posttreatment change and residual or recurrent tumor in the posttreatment neck; and (3) propose a NI-RADS template for reporting on the basis of this lexicon with defined levels of suspicion and management recommendations. In this article, the authors present the ACR NI-RADS Committee's recommendations, which provide guidance regarding the management of patients after treatment for head and neck cancer. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 24 | 42% |
United Kingdom | 5 | 9% |
Switzerland | 3 | 5% |
Spain | 2 | 4% |
Italy | 1 | 2% |
Indonesia | 1 | 2% |
Hungary | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Other | 2 | 4% |
Unknown | 16 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 31 | 54% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 25% |
Scientists | 8 | 14% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 13 | 16% |
Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 12% |
Researcher | 9 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
Other | 12 | 15% |
Unknown | 24 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 51% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
Engineering | 2 | 2% |
Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 1% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
Other | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 33 | 40% |