Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

Research ArticleHead & Neck

Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System: More Than Just a Template

P.A. Rhyner, A.A. Bhatt, K.L. Baugnon and A.H. Aiken
American Journal of Neuroradiology October 2022, 43 (10) 1400-1402; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A7627
P.A. Rhyner
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.A.R., A.A.B.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for P.A. Rhyner
A.A. Bhatt
aFrom the Department of Radiology (P.A.R., A.A.B.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A.A. Bhatt
K.L. Baugnon
bDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (K.L.B., A.H.A.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for K.L. Baugnon
A.H. Aiken
bDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (K.L.B., A.H.A.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A.H. Aiken
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

SUMMARY: The Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS) is a guide developed and introduced in 2017 by head and neck radiologists who worked in an academic radiology department. Based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, the initial goals of NI-RADS were to make posttreatment head and neck cancer imaging dictations more succinct and efficient, guide treating physicians in the next appropriate steps when recurrence was suspected, and encourage institutional and national research. NI-RADS is more than a dictation template, and it is best instituted after a head and neck imaging practice is established. We support the use of NI-RADS once a radiologist understands the nuances of head and neck cancer, including the biology, common subsites involved, essentials of tumor staging, common posttreatment benign imaging appearances, and subtleties of recurrent disease.

ABBREVIATIONS:

CECT
contrast-enhanced CT
HN
head and neck
HNC
head and neck cancer
NI-RADS
Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System
TB
tumor board

The Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS) is a guide developed and introduced in 2017 by head and neck radiologists who worked in an academic radiology department. Based on the widely successful Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, the initial goals of NI-RADS were to make dictations of posttreatment head and neck cancer (HNC) imaging more succinct and efficient, guide treating physicians in the next appropriate steps when recurrence was suspected, and encourage research both within the institution and nationally.1

The clinical setting that allowed NI-RADS to develop and be successful is important. There were 4 neuroradiologists with extensive head and neck (HN) expertise, and all understood the HNC biology of the disease, clinical presentations, variations in imaging based on different pathology, treatment modalities including indications for each, and the nuances of recurrent disease and treatment complications. We were part of a large HNC practice with standardized imaging protocols, surveillance schedules and regimens, and weekly tumor boards (TBs). With time, we knew the accuracy of our interpretations, including results of our recommended biopsies for suspected recurrence at the primary site and pathologic adenopathy.

Formal TB presentations were succinct and direct because we knew exactly the clinical setting or issue, based on our knowledge of the disease. TB discussions and decisions were made with multidisciplinary input. When there was controversy regarding staging or treatment decisions, the conversations were spirited, and this scenario is when we learned the most, even as experienced HNC imagers. In our academic practice, neuroradiology fellows and radiology residents routinely reported that the TB experience added to their HNC knowledge base, but it also impacted their understanding of how critical it is to generate accurate imaging interpretations. As members of the HNC team, we were trusted by nonradiology team members. With this historical background, one can understand how our use of NI-RADS was readily accepted by the HNC team.2

As the volume increased, the need for efficiency in our reports was obvious. Surveillance imaging was a prime example. Does every incidental finding on each follow-up study in the patient with HNC need to be described again? Surveillance imaging goals are the following: 1) primary site treatment response, 2) status of lymph nodes in ipsilateral neck, 3) status of lymph nodes in the contralateral neck, 4) second primary disease, and 5) treatment complications, especially radiation-related soft-tissue or bone necrosis or carotid artery disease. Recommendations based on surveillance posttreatment imaging are limited and are the following:

  1. Continue with established surveillance regimens if the study is negative for recurrence

  2. Use shorter interval follow-up if recurrence is possible but not definite

  3. Direct endoscopic assessment if a mucosal abnormality is present on imaging

  4. Perform additional diagnostic imaging with another modality (usually MR imaging, as surveillance imaging was usually CECT)

  5. Perform PET/CT or image-guided biopsy if a deep recurrence is suspected.

Except for endoscopy, the recommendations are based on imaging or biopsy with image guidance. Therefore, the responsibility for the posttreatment imaging recommendations is the purview of the radiologist.

NI-RADS is more than a simple template to improve dictating efficiency. When a radiologist uses such a specialized reporting system, especially when next-step treatment recommendations are part of the system, the user should be familiar with the disease process and all the variations. The bulk of the template is to assess the primary site and nodal drainage basins.3 A brief bulleted history of the disease before the findings section of the report is helpful (Table). The date of presentation, initial tumor stage including primary and nodal disease, and the initial treatment technique and date can be listed. For radiation treatment, knowing the time since the final treatment is necessary because posttreatment imaging before 10–12 weeks after treatment is not recommended. Knowing the patient’s status, whether the patient is asymptomatic, has a new palpable mass, has pain and what the specialist sees during the most recent outpatient visit is very important.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

NI-RADS history example

It is obvious, then, that adopting and using NI-RADS in daily practice is more than simply inputting a template into a speech-recognition program. Using NI-RADS is a final step, not an initial step, in radiology practice. Without an infrastructure of knowledge, experience, and trust between HN radiologists and a referral clinical practice, NI-RADS should not be used. It requires much more than finding soft-tissue “fullness” or unusual, vague contrast enhancement on imaging.

If a radiology practice does not have dedicated HN neuroradiologists, a subspecialized dictation template can be still be used, but it is best instituted after appropriate preparation and infrastructure development. The following recommendations can serve as a guide to developing an efficient HN service:

  1. Standardize imaging protocols at all sites. CECT, MRI, and PET/CT techniques should be established for accurate comparisons among initial, posttreatment, and surveillance scans. This process includes scan acquisition parameters, scanner angulation, slice thickness, and even which series are sent to the PACS. Standardized intravenous contrast protocols are critical: dose, bolus technique, and timing of acquisition during or after the contrast bolus. In-service educational conferences for CT and MRI technologists help establish and maintain standardization and reinforce the team-based approach to the care of patients with HNC.

  2. Establish imaging algorithms with referrers. Surgeons and oncologists must understand that the availability of both pretreatment and baseline posttreatment imaging results in the best patient care. This involves uploading imaging examinations from an outside institution and formal re-interpretation by an internal radiologist. It is important to have a pretreatment examination before biopsy because postbiopsy change can sometimes hinder accurate staging on imaging. Recognizing recurrent disease is facilitated by knowing what the tumor initially looked like and where it was located prior to treatment. In our experience, the concept of baseline posttreatment imaging was new to some providers. When we likened baseline imaging to the baseline posttreatment physical examination, referring clinicians better understood the need for a predictable time and modality for posttreatment imaging. In our practice, the modality was usually PET coupled with CECT at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Universal surveillance imaging algorithms, with respect to timing and modality, have not been determined, but an individual HNC group can establish their own algorithm.

  3. Establish a core group of radiologists to interpret HNC imaging. One goal of NI-RADS is consistency across imaging techniques, timing of surveillance, and interpretation. A small group of radiologists can more easily agree to standardized interpretations than a large group, with expected differences in interpretation styles, experience, and confidence levels. A smaller group, maybe 2–4 HN radiologists, can better agree on what constitutes worrisome or definite findings of recurrence. Even 1 outlier who routinely overcalls indeterminate findings can impact the practice. Routine meetings among the core group of radiologists helps standardize the imaging approach to a patient with HNC.

  4. HN imagers must recognize the appearance of recurrent HN cancer. Recurrent HNC is rarely an easily appreciated “new necrotic peripherally enhancing mass.” Recurrent tumor in the HN is often subtle: loss of fat planes, gradual changes in reconstructive flap morphology, perineural tumor, muscle denervation, or increasing size of small non-necrotic nodes that are in the expected draining nodal basin. Nodal size criteria are not a reliable predictor of nodal metastasis. Squamous cell carcinoma, the most common tumor, behaves in a different manner depending on the subsite. A true vocal cord tumor and a tonsil carcinoma have different imaging appearances, treatment, and recurrence patterns that are unique to each subsite. Therefore, it is critical that the radiologist know the HN subsites, normal and variant appearances, first- and second-order nodal drainage, common treatment modalities, and the specific imaging appearance of recurrent tumor. This knowledge requires a broad and detailed base because there is no universal and predictable recurrent-tumor appearance. Case sharing and discussion helped our group improve the knowledge base.

  5. Attend TBs and routinely get clinical follow-up, including for operative and image-guided biopsies. Discussion at TBs helps the radiologist understand the nuances of HNC and what specific knowledge various treating clinicians need from imaging. For example, radiation oncologists must know the proximity of the tumor to critical structures, such as the optic nerve or spinal cord. The presence of extranodal extension of tumor is important for medical oncologists to plan chemotherapeutic regimens. Routine follow-up after CT or MRI interpretations and next-step recommendations add to an individual HN radiologist’s expertise.

In summary, our goals were to improve efficiency, standardize imaging and interpretations, clarify the HN radiologists’ responsibilities, and improve patient care. Obviously, we enthusiastically support the use of NI-RADS. Introducing NI-RADS is best when all disciplines involved in caring for a patient with HNC trust that the HN radiologist is familiar with complex HN imaging, has a broad knowledge infrastructure for the disease, and understands the implications of further diagnostic recommendations. Implementing the NI-RADS template is the last step in developing a mature HNC imaging practice.

Footnotes

  • Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text and PDF of this article at www.ajnr.org.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Aiken AH,
    2. Rath TJ,
    3. Anzai Y, et al
    . ACR Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS): a white paper of the ACR NI-RADS Committee. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:1097–108 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.006 pmid:29983244
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Baugnon KL
    . NI-RADS to predict residual or recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2022;32:1–18 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2021.08.003 pmid:34809832
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Strauss SB,
    2. Aiken AH,
    3. Lantos JE, et al
    . Best practices: application of NI-RADS for posttreatment surveillance imaging of head and neck cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:1438–51 doi:10.2214/AJR.20.23841 pmid:32876470
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received April 15, 2022.
  • Accepted after revision July 5, 2022.
  • © 2022 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 43 (10)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 43, Issue 10
1 Oct 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System: More Than Just a Template
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
P.A. Rhyner, A.A. Bhatt, K.L. Baugnon, A.H. Aiken
Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System: More Than Just a Template
American Journal of Neuroradiology Oct 2022, 43 (10) 1400-1402; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7627

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System Overview
P.A. Rhyner, A.A. Bhatt, K.L. Baugnon, A.H. Aiken
American Journal of Neuroradiology Oct 2022, 43 (10) 1400-1402; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7627
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Chondrosarcoma vs Synovial Chondromatosis: Imaging
  • WHO Classification Update: Nasal&Skull Base Tumors
  • Peritumoral Signal in Vestibular Schwannomas
Show more Head & Neck

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner
  • Book Reviews

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire