A restaging report that gives a ypT and a ypN reads as though both were established. In oesophagogastric disease after chemotherapy, nodal assessment on either CT or PET performs at close to chance — and the multidisciplinary meeting will still treat the number as information unless the report says otherwise.
The habit worth having is a single explicit sentence naming the limit: nodal status cannot be reliably assessed on this study. It takes one line, it costs nothing, and it changes how the number is used downstream.
The same applies wherever a modality is being asked a question it does not answer well — a negative plain film in a patient with convincing clinical findings, a lesion characterised on a sequence that was not optimised for it. The referrer cannot see the limitation. Only the person who read the study can put it there.
- Name the question the study cannot answer, in its own sentence, not buried in hedging
- Do this especially for nodal status after neoadjuvant treatment
- A confident-sounding report of an unreliable measurement is worse than no measurement
- Say what would answer it — the next investigation, or pathology — rather than leaving the gap open
Why it matters
A stage assigned at chance-level accuracy reads identically to one assigned with confidence, unless the reporter says so.
Read the rest in the app
You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.
Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.
Tomorrow morning, before your first patient
One edition a day for radiology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.
Get the app — free