Feasibility of a single-phase portal venous CT protocol using bolus tracking technique and lean body weight-based contrast media dose.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the use of lean body weight (LBW)-based contrast material (CM) dose and bolus tracking technique on portal venous phase abdominal CT image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB-approved prospective study; informed consent was acquired. In the period July-November 2023, we randomly selected 105 oncologic patients scheduled for a portal venous phase abdominal CT to undergo our experimental protocol (i.e., 0.7 gI/Kg of LBW CM administration and bolus tracking on the liver). Included patients had performed a "standard" portal venous phase abdominal CT (i.e., 0.6 gI/Kg of total body weight (TBW) contrast material administration and 70 s fixed delay) on the same scanner within the previous 12 months. One reader evaluated CT images measuring liver, portal vein, kidney cortex, and spleen attenuation; values were normalized to paraspinal muscles. RESULTS: Median administered contrast dose (350 mgI/mL CM) was 99 mL (IQR: 81-115 mL) using the experimental protocol and 110 mL (IQR: 100-120 mL) using the standard one (p < 0.0001). Median acquisition delay using the experimental protocol was 65" (IQR 59-73"). Median normalized hepatic enhancement was significantly higher using the experimental protocol (1.97, IQR: 1.83-2.47 vs. 1.86, IQR: 1.58-2.11; p < 0.0001). Median normalized portal vein enhancement was significantly higher using the experimental protocol (3.43, IQR: 2.73-4.04 vs. 2.91, IQR: 2.58-3.41; p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were found in the kidneys' cortex and aorta normalized enhancement (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of LBW-based CM dose administration and bolus tracking allows a significant CM dose reduction and a significant liver and portal vein enhancement increase. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Lean body weight-based contrast material (CM) dose administration and bolus tracking technique in portal venous phase CT scans overcome differences in body composition and hemodynamics, improving reproducibility. It allows a significant CM dose reduction with increased liver and portal vein enhancement. KEY POINTS: Lean body weight (LBW)-based contrast material (CM) dosing could be superior to total body weight dosing. Portal venous phase CT with a liver bolus tracking technique improved liver and spleen enhancement with a reduced contrast dose. The combination of LBW-based CM dosing and liver bolus tracking technique enables more "customized" CT examinations.

Prediction of non-resectability using the updated Predictive Index Value model assessed by imaging and surgery in tubo-ovarian cancer: a prospective multicenter ISAAC study.

BACKGROUND: A laparoscopy-based scoring system was developed by Fagotti et al (Fagotti or Predictive Index Value (PIV)score) based on the intraoperative presence or absence of carcinomatosis on predefined sites. Later, the authors updated the PIV score calculated only in the absence of one or both absolute criteria of non-resectability (mesenteric retraction and miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel) (updated PIV model). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of ultrasound to other imaging methods (contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) and whole-body diffusion-weighted (WB DWI)/MRI) in predicting non-resectable tumor (defined as residual disease>1 cm) using the updated PIV model in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer. The agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings as a reference was also calculated. STUDY DESIGN: This was a European prospective multicenter observational study. We included patients with suspected tubo-ovarian carcinoma who underwent preoperative staging and prediction of non-resectability at ultrasound, CT, WB-DWI/MRI and surgical exploration. The predictors of non-resectability were suspicious mesenteric retraction and/or miliary carcinomatosis of the small bowel or if absent, a PIV>8 (updated PIV model). The PIV score ranges from 0 to 12 according to the presence of disease in six predefined intra-abdominal sites (great omentum, liver surface, lesser omentum/stomach/spleen, parietal peritoneum, diaphragms, bowel serosa/mesentery). The reference standard was surgical outcome, in terms of residual disease>1 cm, assessed by laparoscopy and/or laparotomy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess the performance of the methods in predicting non-resectability was reported. Concordance between index tests at detection of disease at six predefined sites and intraoperative exploration as reference standard was also calculated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The study was between 2018 and 2022 in five European gynecological oncology centers. Data from 242 patients having both mandatory index tests (ultrasound and CT) were analyzed. 145/242 (59.9%) patients had no macroscopic residual tumor after surgery (R0) (5/145 laparoscopy and 140/145 laparotomy) and 17/242 (7.0%) had residual tumor ≤1cm (R1) (laparotomy). In 80/242 patients (33.1%), the residual tumor was >1 cm (R2), 30 of them underwent laparotomy and maximum surgery was carried out and 50/80 underwent laparoscopy and cytoreduction was not feasible in all of them. After excluding 18/242 (7.4%) patients operated on but not eligible for extensive surgery, the predictive performance of three imaging methods was analyzed in 167 women. The AUCs of all methods in discriminating between resectable and non-resectable tumor was 0.80 for ultrasound, 0.76 for CT, 0.71 for WB-DWI/MRI and 0.90 for surgical exploration. Ultrasound had the highest agreement (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.59 to 0.79) compared to CT and WB-DWI/MRI to assess all parameters included in the updated PIV model. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound showed non-inferiority to CT and to WB-DWI/MRI in discriminating between resectable and non-resectable tumor using the updated PIV model. Ultrasound had the best agreement between imaging and intraoperative findings in the assessment of parameters included in the updated PIV model. Ultrasound is an acceptable method to assess abdominal disease and predict non-resectability in patients with tubo-ovarian cancer in the hands of specially trained ultrasound examiners.

Impact of different peak tube voltage settings on adrenal adenomas attenuation at unenhanced CT.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of peak tube voltage peak setting on adrenal adenomas (AA) attenuation on unenhanced abdominal CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB-approved retrospective observational cohort study. We included 89 patients with imaging-defined AAs with shortest diameter > 6 mm who underwent two or more unenhanced abdominal CTs using at least two different peak tube voltage settings. Two readers independently measured adenoma attenuation on different CT acquisitions by drawing a round ROI on 3 mm thick axial MPR reconstructions encompassing at least 2/3 of the lesion's surface. The mean of the values measured by the two readers was used for further analysis. Interobserver variability was assessed (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient). Attenuation values measured on 100, 110 and 140 kVp acquisitions were compared with standard 120 kVp ones (Bland-Altman analysis). RESULTS: We included 275 unenhanced abdominal CTs (3.1 ± 0.9/patient) in image analysis; 131 acquired at 120 kVp, 65 at 100 kVp, 59 at 110 kVp, and 20 at 140 kVp. 107 lesions were detected in 89 patients (1-4/patient), with a mean maximum diameter of 17 ± 6 mm. Interobserver agreement in attenuation measurement was excellent (ICC: 0.95, CI (92-97)). Median adenoma attenuation was significantly lower on 100 kVp images than on 120 kVp ones (-1 HU, IQR (-5 to 3.6), vs, 2.5 HU, IQR (-1.5 to 8.5); p < 0.001) whereas we didn't find statistically significant differences in adenoma attenuation between 110 kVp or 140 kVp and 120 kVp ones. CONCLUSION: AA attenuation is significantly lower on unenhanced CT scans acquired at 100 kVp than on those acquired at "standard" 120 kVp. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: AA attenuation is significantly lower at 100 kVp in comparison to 120 kVp. This might be exploited to increase unenhanced CT sensitivity in adenoma characterisation, but further studies including non-adenoma lesions are mandatory to confirm this hypothesis. KEY POINTS: CT scans are often acquired using peak tube voltage settings different from the "standard" 120 kVp. AA attenuation varies if CT scans are acquired using different tube peak voltage settings. At 100 kVp AAs show a significantly lower attenuation than at 120 kVp.

ESR Essentials: characterisation and staging of adnexal masses with MRI and CT-practice recommendations by ESUR.

Ovarian masses encompass various conditions, from benign to highly malignant, and imaging plays a vital role in their diagnosis and management. Ultrasound, particularly transvaginal ultrasound, is the foremost diagnostic method for adnexal masses. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is advised for more precise characterisation if ultrasound results are inconclusive. The ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS) MRI lexicon and scoring system provides a standardised method for describing, assessing, and categorising the risk of each ovarian mass. Determining a histological differential diagnosis of the mass may influence treatment decision-making and treatment planning. When ultrasound or MRI suggests the possibility of cancer, computed tomography (CT) is the preferred imaging technique for staging. It is essential to outline the extent of the malignancy, guide treatment decisions, and evaluate the feasibility of cytoreductive surgery. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the key imaging processes in evaluating and managing ovarian masses, from initial diagnosis to initial treatment. It also includes pertinent recommendations for properly performing and interpreting various imaging modalities. KEY POINTS: MRI is the modality of choice for indeterminate ovarian masses at ultrasound, and the O-RADS MRI lexicon and score enable unequivocal communication with clinicians. CT is the recommended modality for suspected ovarian masses to tailor treatment and surgery. Multidisciplinary meetings integrate information and help decide the most appropriate treatment for each patient.

RadioGraphics Update: 2023 FIGO Staging System for Endometrial Cancer.

Editor's Note.-RadioGraphics Update articles supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics. These updates, written by at least one author of the previous article, provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes.

Patient satisfaction with ultrasound, whole-body CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for pre-operative ovarian cancer staging: a multicenter prospective cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the diagnostic accuracy of imaging methods, patient-reported satisfaction with imaging methods is important. OBJECTIVE: To report a secondary outcome of the prospective international multicenter Imaging Study in Advanced ovArian Cancer (ISAAC Study), detailing patients' experience with abdomino-pelvic ultrasound, whole-body contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), and whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI/MRI) for pre-operative ovarian cancer work-up. METHODS: In total, 144 patients with suspected ovarian cancer at four institutions in two countries (Italy, Czech Republic) underwent ultrasound, CT, and WB-DWI/MRI for pre-operative work-up between January 2020 and November 2022. After having undergone all three examinations, the patients filled in a questionnaire evaluating their overall experience and experience in five domains: preparation before the examination, duration of examination, noise during the procedure, radiation load of CT, and surrounding space. Pain perception, examination-related patient-perceived unexpected, unpleasant, or dangerous events ('adverse events'), and preferred method were also noted. RESULTS: Ultrasound was the preferred method by 49% (70/144) of responders, followed by CT (38%, 55/144), and WB-DWI/MRI (13%, 19/144) (p<0.001). The poorest experience in all domains was reported for WB-DWI/MRI, which was also associated with the largest number of patients who reported adverse events (eg, dyspnea). Patients reported higher levels of pain during the ultrasound examination than during CT and WB-DWI/MRI (p<0.001): 78% (112/144) reported no pain or mild pain, 19% (27/144) moderate pain, and 3% (5/144) reported severe pain (pain score >7 of 10) during the ultrasound examination. We did not identify any factors related to patients' preferred method. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound was the imaging method preferred by most patients despite being associated with more pain during the examination in comparison with CT and WB-DWI/MRI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03808792.

Perceptions of radiologists on structured reporting for cancer imaging-a survey by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI).

OBJECTIVES: To assess radiologists' current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists' experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = - 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = - 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement. KEY POINTS: • The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice. • The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%). • Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans.