Scintigraphy of Gastrointestinal Motility: Best Practices in Assessment of Gastric and Bowel Transit in Adults.

Various radiologic examinations and other diagnostic tools exist for evaluating gastrointestinal diseases. When symptoms of gastrointestinal disease persist and no underlying anatomic or structural abnormality is identified, the diagnosis of functional gastrointestinal disorder is frequently applied. Given its physiologic and quantitative nature, scintigraphy often plays a central role in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with suspected functional gastrointestinal disorder. Most frequently, after functional gallbladder disease is excluded, gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES) is considered the next step in evaluating patients with suspected gastric motility disorder who present with upper gastrointestinal symptoms such as dyspepsia or bloating. GES is the standard modality for detecting delayed gastric emptying (gastroparesis) and the less commonly encountered clinical entity, gastric dumping syndrome. Additionally, GES can be used to assess abnormalities of intragastric distribution, suggesting specific disorders such as impaired fundal accommodation or antral dysfunction, as well as to evaluate gastric emptying of liquid. More recently, scintigraphic examinations for evaluating small bowel and large bowel transit have been developed and validated for routine diagnostic use. These can be performed individually or as part of a comprehensive whole-gut transit evaluation. Such scintigraphic examinations are of particular importance because clinical assessment of suspected functional gastrointestinal disorder frequently fails to accurately localize the site of disease, and those patients may have motility disorders involving multiple portions of the gastrointestinal tract. The authors comprehensively review the current practice of gastrointestinal transit scintigraphy, with diseases and best imaging practices illustrated by means of case review. ©RSNA, 2024 See the invited commentary by Maurer and Parkman in this issue.

Imaging evaluation of lymphoma in pregnancy with review of clinical assessment and treatment options.

Lymphoma-related malignancies can be categorized as Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) based on histologic characteristics. Although quite rare during pregnancy, HL and NHL are the fourth and fifth most common malignancies during the pregnancy period, respectively. Given the rarity of lymphoma among pregnant patients, radiologists are usually unfamiliar with the modifications required for staging and treatment of this population, even those who work at centers with busy obstetrical services. Therefore, this manuscript serves to not only review the abdominopelvic imaging features of lymphoma in pregnancy, but it also discusses topics including birthing parent and fetal lymphoma-related prognosis, both antenatal and postpartum, current concepts in the management of pregnancy-related lymphoma, as well as the current considerations regarding birthing parent onco-fertility.

Clinical and Payer-Based Analysis of Value of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for Workup of Incidental Abdominal Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a clinical and payer-based analysis of the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for workup of incidental abdominal findings. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospectively designed, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study approved by our institutional review board. Sixty-nine examinations in 69 patients (45 men, 24 women; mean age, 57.7 years) who underwent single-phase postcontrast abdominal DECT studies between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017, were included. Two radiologists, blinded to study objective and design, reviewed all cases and identified incidental abdominal findings needing further imaging. All incidental findings were reviewed by 2 other investigators, who determined whether an imaging-based diagnosis could be made using DECT virtual noncontrast images and iodine maps. Additional studies and associated payer-reimbursement amounts avoided by use of DECT were estimated. All imaging costs were estimated based on the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts. RESULTS: Thirty-four incidental findings (renal mass, n = 20; adrenal nodule, n = 8; pancreatic cystic lesions, n = 3; others, n = 3) were identified in 19 (27.5%) of 69 patients. Dual-energy computed tomography characterized 27 incidental findings in 15 patients and accounted for cost savings of 15 additional imaging examinations (abdominal magnetic resonance imaging, n = 11; abdominal computed tomography, n = 4). Based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement amounts, we estimated that, by abolishing the need for additional imaging use, DECT saved US $84.95 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy computed tomography can provide an imaging-based diagnosis of incidental abdominal findings, otherwise incompletely characterized on routine abdominal computed tomography, in approximately 21% of patients. In select patients, the monetary savings from abolishing additional imaging may reduce payer costs associated with use of DECT.