Current Practice Patterns, Challenges, and Need for Education in Performing and Reporting Advanced Pelvic US and MRI to Investigate Endometriosis: A Survey by the Canadian Association of Radiologists Endometriosis Working Group.

Purpose: The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Endometriosis Working Group developed a national survey to evaluate current practice patterns associated with imaging endometriosis using advanced pelvic ultrasound and MRI to inform forthcoming clinical practice guidelines for endometriosis imaging. Methods: The anonymous survey consisted of 36 questions and was distributed electronically to CAR members. The survey contained a mix of multiple choice, Likert scale and open-ended questions intended to collect information about training and certification, current practices and protocols associated with imaging endometriosis, opportunities for quality improvement and continuing professional development. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Results: Canadian radiologists were surveyed about their experience with imaging endometriosis. A total of 89 responses were obtained, mostly from Ontario and Quebec. Most respondents were community radiologists, and almost 33% were in their first five years of practice. Approximately 38% of respondents reported that they or their institution performed advanced pelvic ultrasound for endometriosis, with most having done so for less than 5 years, and most having received training during residency or fellowship. 70% of respondents stated they currently interpret pelvic endometriosis MRI, with most having 1-5 years of experience. Conclusion: Many radiologists in Canada do not perform dedicated imaging for endometriosis. This may be due to a lack of understanding of the benefits and limited access to training. However, dedicated imaging can improve patient outcomes and decrease repeated surgeries. The results highlight the importance of developing guidelines for these imaging techniques and promoting a multidisciplinary approach to endometriosis management.

CAR Practice Statement on Advanced Pelvic Ultrasound for Endometriosis.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Endometriosis Working Group was tasked with providing guidance and benchmarks to ensure the quality of technique and interpretation for advanced imaging modalities associated with diagnosing endometriosis. This practice statement provides an overview of the state of the art of advanced pelvic ultrasound in the diagnosis and mapping of pelvic endometriosis. While acknowledging that advanced pelvic ultrasound in some practices falls within the scope of clinical colleagues rather than imaging departments, the statement seeks to guide radiologists interested in implementing these techniques into their practice for patients referred for evaluation and diagnosis of endometriosis. The statement covers indications, some components of the ultrasound assessment and technique, reporting, and recommendations for starting an ultrasound endometriosis evaluation program.

Optimizing Outpatient Oral Contrast Use in Abdominal CT-A Radiology Pandemic Response Initiative to Reduce Patient Time in the Waiting Room and Reduce Costs, While Improving Patient Experience.

Purpose: The aim was to reduce outpatient wait time and improve patient experience by optimising oral contrast use. Methods: Our multidisciplinary stakeholder collaboration implemented two simultaneous interventions: (1) Creation of 'oral contrast policy', limiting recommended indications. (2) Creation of a new shorter oral contrast regime (30 vs 60 min). We conducted a retrospective service evaluation of oral contrast use in outpatient (OP) abdominal CT at baseline and post-intervention. Patient wait times were measured and per-patient cost-savings were reported. An image quality review was performed by 2 blinded abdominal radiologists. Patient experience was evaluated with a standard voluntary survey. Statistical analysis was performed comparing baseline and evaluation outcomes using Chi-square or Fisher Exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test or ANOVA for continuous data. Results: Over 1-month periods, OP CT scans were assessed in baseline (pre-pandemic) n = 575, baseline (pandemic) n = 495 and post-intervention n = 545 groups. Oral contrast use reduced from 420/575, 73.0% at baseline to 178/545, 32.7% post intervention. The turn-around time reduced by 15.8 minutes per patient from 70.3 to 54.5 minutes, P < .001 (Interventions 1 and 2). The diagnostic quality did not differ between the oral contrast regimes (Intervention 2, P = 1.0, P = .08). No repeat CTs were needed due to lack of oral contrast (Intervention 1) or poor opacification (Intervention 2). There was oral contrast cost reductions of 69.1-78.4% (P < .001). Patients reported their overall experience was improved post-intervention (Interventions 1 and 2). Conclusions: Optimising the CT oral contrast service through judicious use and a shorter regime, reduced patient wait times, improved patient experience and preserved diagnostic quality.

Universal Liver Imaging Lexicon: Imaging Atlas for Research and Clinical Practice.

The use of standardized terms in assessing and reporting disease processes has well-established benefits, such as clear communication between radiologists and other health care providers, improved diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility, and the enhancement and facilitation of research. Recently, the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Steering Committee released a universal liver imaging lexicon. The current version of the lexicon includes 81 vetted and precisely defined terms that are relevant to acquisition of images using all major liver imaging modalities and contrast agents, as well as lesion- and organ-level features. Most terms in the lexicon are applicable to all patients undergoing imaging of the liver, and only a minority of the terms are strictly intended to be used for patients with high risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma. This pictorial atlas familiarizes readers with the liver imaging lexicon and includes discussion of general concepts, providing sample definitions, schematics, and clinical examples for a subset of the terms in the liver imaging lexicon. The authors discuss general, technical, and imaging feature terms used commonly in liver imaging, with the goal of illustrating their use for clinical and research applications. Work of the U.S. Government published under an exclusive license with the RSNA. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Imaging Evaluation of Living Liver Donor Candidates: Techniques, Protocols, and Anatomy.

The need for liver transplants is increasing because the prevalence of liver diseases and the indications for transplants are growing. In response to the shortage of grafts from deceased donors, more transplants are being performed worldwide with grafts from living donors. Radiologic evaluation is an integral component in the assessment of donor candidates to ensure their eligibility and to choose the most appropriate surgical approach. MRI is the preferred modality for evaluation of the liver parenchyma and biliary tree. In most centers, a combination of MRI and CT is used to take advantage of the higher spatial resolution of CT for evaluation of arteries. However, MRI-only assessment is feasible. In addition to assessment of the liver parenchyma for abnormalities such as steatosis, a detailed evaluation of the hepatic vascular and biliary system for pertinent anatomic variants is crucial, because these variants can affect surgical techniques and outcomes in both recipients and donors. In this pictorial article, after a brief review of the most common surgical techniques and postsurgical liver anatomy, the biliary and vascular anatomy are discussed, with specific attention paid to the variants that are pertinent to this surgical procedure. The roles of liver segmentation and volumetric assessment and current imaging techniques and protocols are also discussed. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2021.

Chronic Liver Disease and Liver Cancer: What the Hepatologists, Oncologists, and Surgeons Want to Know from Radiologists.

Effective communication between radiologists and physicians involved in the management of patients with chronic liver disease is paramount to ensuring appropriate and advantageous incorporation of liver imaging findings into patient care. This review discusses the clinical benefits of innovations in radiology reporting, what information the various stakeholders wish to know from the radiologist, and how radiology can help to ensure the effective communication of findings.

LI-RADS treatment response lexicon: review, refresh and resolve with emerging data.

The imaging findings after loco regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma are variable based on the type of treatment used, the timing interval of imaging after treatment, and the cross-sectional modality used for treatment response assessment. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Treatment Response Algorithm (TRA) is a relatively new standardized method of evaluating treatment response after loco regional therapy to hepatocellular carcinoma. In this article, we provide an overview of the evolution of the treatment response algorithm, its current applicability and its outlook for the future. We will review current guidelines and discuss proposed changes to the algorithm as a means to continually improve LI-RADS TRA as an assessment tool post-loco regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Role of the radiologist at HCC multidisciplinary conference and use of the LR-TR algorithm for improving workflow.

Multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs) play a major role in management and care of oncology patients. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex disease benefiting from multidisciplinary discussions to determine optimal patient management. A multitude of liver-directed locoregional therapies have emerged allowing for more options for treatment of HCC. A radiologist dedicated to HCC-MDC is an important member of the team contributing to patient care in multiple ways. The radiologist plays a key role in image interpretation guiding initial therapy discussions as well as interpreting post-treatment imaging following liver-directed therapy. Standardization of image interpretation can lead to more consistent treatment received by the patient as well as accurate assessment of transplant eligibility. The radiologist can facilitate this process using structured reporting that is also supported by stakeholders involved in interdisciplinary management of liver diseases. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), is a living document which offers a standardized reporting algorithm for consistent communication of radiologic findings for HCC screening and characterization of liver observations in patients at risk for HCC. The LI-RADS post-treatment algorithm (LR-TR algorithm) has been developed to standardize liver observations following liver-directed locoregional therapy. This review article focuses on the role of the radiologist at HCC-MDC and implementation of the LR-TR algorithm for improving workflow.

Online Liver Imaging Course; Pivoting to Transform Radiology Education During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has drastically disrupted radiology in-person education. The purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of a virtual teaching method using available technology and its role in the continuity of education of practicing radiologists and trainees during the pandemic. METHODS: The authors created the Online Liver Imaging Course (OLIC) that comprised 28 online comprehensive lectures delivered in real-time and on-demand over six weeks. Radiologists and radiology trainees were asked to register to attend the live sessions. At the end of the course, we conducted a 46-question survey among registrants addressing their training level, perception of virtual conferencing, and evaluation of the course content. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and thirty four radiologists and trainees completed interest sign up forms before the start of the course with the first webinar having the highest number of live attendees (343 people). On average, there were 89 live participants per session and 750 YouTube views per recording (as of July 9, 2020). After the end of the course, 487 attendees from 37 countries responded to the postcourse survey for an overall response rate of (33%). Approximately (63%) of participants were practicing radiologists while (37%) were either fellows or residents and rarely medical students. The overwhelming majority (97%) found the OLIC webinar series to be beneficial. Essentially all attendees felt that the webinar sessions met (43%) or exceeded (57%) their expectations. When asked about their perception of virtual conferences after attending OLIC lectures, almost all attendees (99%) enjoyed the virtual conference with a majority (61%) of the respondents who enjoyed the virtual format more than in-person conferences, while (38%) enjoyed the webinar format but preferred in-person conferences. When asked about the willingness to attend virtual webinars in the future, (84%) said that they would attend future virtual conferences even if in-person conferences resume while (15%) were unsure. CONCLUSION: The success of the OLIC, attributed to many factors, indicates that videoconferencing technology provides an inexpensive alternative to in-person radiology conferences. The positive responses to our postcourse survey suggest that virtual education will remain to stay. Educational institutions and scientific societies should foster such models.

Collateral Damage: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Acute Abdominal Emergency Presentations.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus. Public information created awareness as well as concern in the general population. There has been a reported decrease in the number of patients attending emergency departments (ED) during the pandemic. This is the first study to determine differences in the types of presenting illnesses, severity, and rate of resultant surgical intervention during the pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We carried out a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing two groups of patients attending the ED at our tertiary-care academic hospital. A historical comparison cohort was obtained by reviewing the number of patients referred by the ED for abdominal CT between March 15 and April 15, 2020, compared with March 15 and April 15, 2019. CT reports were reviewed; primary pathologies, complications, and subsequent surgical intervention were documented and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In all, 733 patients were included in the 2019 cohort, and 422 patients were included in the 2020 cohort. In 2019, 32.7% had positive CT findings, increasing to 50.5% in 2020. The number of complications increased from 7.9% to 19.7%. The rate requiring surgical intervention increased from 26.3% to 47.6% in 2020. CONCLUSION: To date, there is little published data regarding the presentation and severity of illnesses during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This information has important public health implications, highlighting the need to educate patients to continue to present to hospital services during such crises, including if a purported second wave of COVID-19 arises.

Imaging and Management of Liver Cancer.

Imaging of primary hepatic neoplasms in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and in patients with otherwise normal livers relies on proper multiphase image acquisition technique, with emphasis on a high-quality, late arterial phase, using either CT or MRI for accurate image interpretation. The introduction of liver imaging reporting and data system in 2011, with subsequent multiple updates, the most recent in 2018, has provided standardization of image interpretation, reporting and management recommendations for liver observations in patients at risk for HCC. This review article will emphasize key points of imaging primary liver tumors with emphasis on liver imaging reporting and data system, including strengths of this system. We will also review imaging of less common primary liver tumors such as cholangiocarcinoma and angiosarcomas. Imaging pitfall associated with primary liver malignancies will be demonstrated as well as ways to mitigate them. Finally, imaging and reporting of findings following locoregional treatment of HCC will be reviewed.

Clinicians and surgeon survey regarding current and future versions of CT/MRI LI-RADS.

PURPOSE: To determine preferences of clinicians and surgeons regarding radiology reporting of liver observations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Members of the American College of Radiology Liver Imaging and Data Reporting System (LI-RADS) Outreach & Education Group (30 members) as well as Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on HCC diagnosis (27 members) created and distributed an 18-question survey to clinicians and surgeons, with focus on preferences regarding radiology reporting of liver observations in patients. The survey questions were directed to physician demographics, current use of LI-RADS by their local radiologists, their opinions about current LI-RADS and potential improvements. RESULTS: A total of 152 physicians responded, 66.4% (101/152) from North America, including 42 surgeons, 81 physicians and 29 interventional radiologists. Participants were predominantly from academic centers 83% (126/152), while 13.8% (21/152) worked in private/community centers and 3.2% (5/152) worked in a hybrid practice. Almost 90% (136/152) of participants preferred the use of LI-RADS (compared to nothing or other standardized reporting systems; OPTN and AASLD) to communicate liver-related observations. However, only 28.5% (43/152) of participants input was sought at the time of implementing LI-RADS in their institutions. Fifty-eight percent (88/152) of all participants found standardized LI-RADS management recommendations in radiology reports to be clinically helpful. However, a subgroup analysis of surgeons in academic centers showed that 61.8% (21/34) prefer not to receive standardized LI-RADS recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants preferred the use LI-RADS in reporting CT and MRI examination. When considering inclusion of management recommendations, radiologists should consult with their referring physicians, as preference may differ.

User and system pitfalls in liver imaging with LI-RADS.

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver imaging, created specifically for patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the past years, LI-RADS has been progressively implemented into clinical practice, but pitfalls remain related to user error and inherent limitations of the system. User pitfalls include the inappropriate application of LI-RADS to a low-risk patient population, incorrect measurement techniques, inaccurate assumptions about LI-RADS requirements, and improper usage of LI-RADS terminology and categories. System pitfalls include areas of discordance with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as well as pitfalls related to rare ancillary features. This article reviews common user pitfalls in applying LI-RADS v2018 and how to avoid preventable errors and also highlights deficiencies of the current version of LI-RADS and how it might be improved in the future. Level of Evidence:3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1673-1686.

LI-RADS: a conceptual and historical review from its beginning to its recent integration into AASLD clinical practice guidance.

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS®) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver observations in individuals at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS is supported and endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Upon its initial release in 2011, LI-RADS applied only to liver observations identified at CT or MRI. It has since been refined and expanded over multiple updates to now also address ultrasound-based surveillance, contrast-enhanced ultrasound for HCC diagnosis, and CT/MRI for assessing treatment response after locoregional therapy. The LI-RADS 2018 version was integrated into the HCC diagnosis, staging, and management practice guidance of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). This article reviews the major LI-RADS updates since its 2011 inception and provides an overview of the currently published LI-RADS algorithms.