Radiology State-of-the-art Review: Endometriosis Imaging Interpretation and Reporting.

Endometriosis is a common condition impacting approximately 190 million individuals and up to 50% of women with infertility globally. The disease is characterized by endometrial-like tissue located outside of the uterine corpus, which causes cyclical hemorrhage, inflammation, and fibrosis. Based on clinical suspicion or findings at routine transvaginal pelvic US or other prior imaging, dedicated imaging for endometriosis may be warranted with MRI or advanced transvaginal US. Deep endometriosis (DE) in the pelvis includes evaluation for stromal and fibrotic components and architectural distortion resulting from fibrosis and tethering. It is a disease requiring a compartment-based, pattern-recognition approach. MRI has the benefit of global assessment of the pelvis and is effective in assessing for features of malignancy and for evaluating extrapelvic locations. Transvaginal US has the advantage of dynamic maneuvers to assess for adhesions and may achieve higher spatial resolution for assessing the depth of bowel wall invasion. T1-weighted MRI evaluation increases the specificity of diagnosis by identifying hemorrhagic components, but the presence of T1 signal hyperintensity is not essential for diagnosing DE. Endometriosis is a disease with a broad spectrum; understanding the mild through advanced manifestations, including malignancy evaluation, is within the scope and breadth of radiologists' interpretation.

Prevalence of Malignancy in Adrenal Nodules With Heterogeneous Microscopic Fat on Chemical-Shift MRI: A Multiinstitutional Study.

BACKGROUND. Homogeneous microscopic fat within adrenal nodules on chemical-shift MRI (CS-MRI) is diagnostic of benign adrenal adenoma, but the clinical relevance of heterogeneous microscopic fat is not well established. OBJECTIVE. This study sought to determine the prevalence of malignancy in adrenal nodules with heterogeneous microscopic fat on dual-echo T1-weighted CS-MRI. METHODS. We performed a retrospective study of adult patients with adrenal nodules detected on MRI performed between August 2007 and November 2020 at seven institutions. Eligible nodules had a short-axis diameter of 10 mm or larger with heterogeneous microscopic fat (defined by an area of signal loss of < 80% on opposed-phase CS-MRI). Two radiologists from each center, blinded to reference standard results, determined the signal loss pattern (diffuse, two distinct parts, speckling pattern, central loss, or peripheral loss) within the nodules. The reference standard used was available for 283 nodules (pathology for 21 nodules, ≥ 1 year of imaging follow-up for 245, and ≥ 5 years of clinical follow-up for 17) in 282 patients (171 women and 111 men; mean age, 60 ± 12 [SD] years); 30% (86/282) patients had prior malignancy. RESULTS. The mean long-axis diameter was 18.7 ± 7.9 mm (range, 10-80 mm). No malignant nodules were found in patients without prior cancer (0/197; 95% CI, 0-1.5%). Four of the 86 patients with prior malignancy (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], renal cell carcinoma [RCC], lung cancer, or both colon cancer and RCC) (4.7%; 95% CI, 1.3-11.5%) had metastatic nodules. Detected patterns were diffuse heterogeneous signal loss (40% [114/283]), speckling (28% [80/283]), two distinct parts (18% [51/283]), central loss (9% [26/283]), and peripheral loss (4% [12/283]). Two metastases from HCC and RCC showed diffuse heterogeneous signal loss. Lung cancer metastasis manifested as two distinct parts, and the metastasis in the patient with both colon cancer and RCC showed peripheral signal loss. CONCLUSION. Presence of heterogeneous microscopic fat in adrenal nodules on CS-MRI indicates a high likelihood of benignancy, particularly in patients without prior cancer. This finding is also commonly benign in patients with cancer; however, caution is warranted when primary malignancies may contain fat or if the morphologic pattern of signal loss may indicate a collision tumor. CLINICAL IMPACT. In the absence of prior cancer, adrenal nodules with heterogeneous microscopic fat do not require additional imaging evaluation.

Adrenal Neoplasms: Lessons from Adrenal Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards.

The radiologic diagnosis of adrenal disease can be challenging in settings of atypical presentations, mimics of benign and malignant adrenal masses, and rare adrenal anomalies. Misdiagnosis may lead to suboptimal management and adverse outcomes. Adrenal adenoma is the most common benign adrenal tumor that arises from the cortex, whereas adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignant tumor of the cortex. Adrenal cyst and myelolipoma are other benign adrenal lesions and are characterized by their fluid and fat content, respectively. Pheochromocytoma is a rare neuroendocrine tumor of the adrenal medulla. Metastases to the adrenal glands are the most common malignant adrenal tumors. While many of these masses have classic imaging appearances, considerable overlap exists between benign and malignant lesions and can pose a diagnostic challenge. Atypical adrenal adenomas include those that are lipid poor; contain macroscopic fat, hemorrhage, and/or iron; are heterogeneous and/or large; and demonstrate growth. Heterogeneous adrenal adenomas may mimic ACC, metastasis, or pheochromocytoma, particularly when they are 4 cm or larger, whereas smaller versions of ACC, metastasis, and pheochromocytoma and those with washout greater than 60% may mimic adenoma. Because of its nonenhanced CT attenuation of less than or equal to 10 HU, a lipid-rich adrenal adenoma may be mimicked by a benign adrenal cyst, or it may be mimicked by a tumor with central cystic and/or necrotic change such as ACC, pheochromocytoma, or metastasis. Rare adrenal tumors such as hemangioma, ganglioneuroma, and oncocytoma also may mimic adrenal adenoma, ACC, metastasis, and pheochromocytoma. The authors describe cases of adrenal neoplasms that they have encountered in clinical practice and presented to adrenal multidisciplinary tumor boards. Key lessons to aid in diagnosis and further guide appropriate management are provided. © RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.

Exploratory Study of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Histogram Metrics in Assessing Pancreatic Malignancy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whole-lesion 3D-histogram apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics for assessment of pancreatic malignancy. METHODS: Forty-two pancreatic malignancies (36 pancreatic adenocarcinoma [PDAC], 6 pancreatic neuroendocrine [PanNET]) underwent abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging before endoscopic ultrasound biopsy or surgical resection. Two radiologists independently placed 3D volumes of interest to derive whole-lesion histogram ADC metrics. Mann-Whitney tests and receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to assess metrics' diagnostic performance for lesion histology, T-stage, N-stage, and grade. RESULTS: Whole-lesion ADC histogram metrics lower in PDACs than PanNETs for both readers (P ≤ .026) were mean ADC (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.787-0.792), mean of the bottom 10th percentile (mean0-10) (AUC = 0.787-0.880), mean of the 10th-25th percentile (mean10-25) (AUC = 0.884-0.917) and mean of the 25th-50th percentile (mean25-50) (AUC = 0.829-0.829). For mean10-25 (metric with highest AUC for identifying PDAC), for reader 1 a threshold > 0.94 × 10-3 mm2/s achieved sensitivity 94% and specificity 83%, and for reader 2 a threshold > 0.82 achieved sensitivity 97% and specificity 67%. Metrics lower in nodal status ≥ N1 than N0 for both readers (P ≤ .043) were mean0-10 (AUC = 0.789-0.822) and mean10-25 (AUC = 0.800-0.822). For mean10-25 (metric with highest AUC for identifying N0), for reader 1 a threshold <1.17 achieved sensitivity 87% and specificity 67%, and for reader 2 a threshold <1.04 achieved sensitivity 87% and specificity 83%. No metric was associated with T-stage (P > .195) or grade (P > .215). CONCLUSION: Volumetric ADC histogram metrics may serve as non-invasive biomarkers of pancreatic malignancy. Mean10-25 outperformed standard mean for lesion histology and nodal status, supporting the role of histogram analysis.

What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate.

Purpose To characterize clinically important prostate cancers missed at multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods The local institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective single-center study, which included 100 consecutive patients who had undergone MP MR imaging and subsequent radical prostatectomy. A genitourinary pathologist blinded to MP MR findings outlined prostate cancers on whole-mount pathology slices. Two readers correlated mapped lesions with reports of prospectively read MP MR images. Readers were blinded to histopathology results during prospective reading. At histopathologic examination, 80 clinically unimportant lesions (<5 mm; Gleason score, 3+3) were excluded. The same two readers, who were not blinded to histopathologic findings, retrospectively reviewed cancers missed at MP MR imaging and assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 score to better understand false-negative lesion characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to define patient characteristics, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density, race, digital rectal examination results, and biopsy results before MR imaging. Student t test was used to determine any demographic differences between patients with false-negative MP MR imaging findings and those with correct prospective identification of all lesions. Results Of the 162 lesions, 136 (84%) were correctly identified with MP MR imaging. Size of eight lesions was underestimated. Among the 26 (16%) lesions missed at MP MR imaging, Gleason score was 3+4 in 17 (65%), 4+3 in one (4%), 4+4 in seven (27%), and 4+5 in one (4%). Retrospective PI-RADS version 2 scores were assigned (PI-RADS 1, n = 8; PI-RADS 2, n = 7; PI-RADS 3, n = 6; and PI-RADS 4, n = 5). On a per-patient basis, MP MR imaging depicted clinically important prostate cancer in 99 of 100 patients. At least one clinically important tumor was missed in 26 (26%) patients, and lesion size was underestimated in eight (8%). Conclusion Clinically important lesions can be missed or their size can be underestimated at MP MR imaging. Of missed lesions, 58% were not seen or were characterized as benign findings at second-look analysis. Recognition of the limitations of MP MR imaging is important, and new approaches to reduce this false-negative rate are needed. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values of Prostate Cancer: Comparison of 2D and 3D ROIs.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility and diagnostic performance of 2D and 3D ROIs for prostate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 56 patients with prostate cancer undergoing 3-T MRI including DWI (b = 50 and 1000 s/mm2) before radical prostatectomy. Histologic findings from prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to denote each patient's dominant tumor and a benign region with visually decreased ADC. Three readers independently measured the ADCs of both areas using an ROI placed on a single slice through the lesion (2D) and an ROI encompassing all slices through the lesion (3D). Readers repeated measurements after 3 weeks. Assessment included Bland-Altman analysis (coefficient of repeatability [CR] in which lower values indicated higher reliability) and ROC analysis. RESULTS: For intrareader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 9.9% for 2D and 9.3% for 3D. For tumor ROIs the CRs were 10.6% for 2D and 9.6% for 3D. For interreader variability, the CRs across readers for all ROIs were 17.1% for 2D and 20.5% for 3D and for tumor ROIs were 17.9% for 2D and 22.2% for 3D. For combined reader data, the AUCs for benign and malignant findings were 0.77 for 2D and 0.78 for 3D (p = 0.146). For differentiating Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 from GS > 3 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.92 for 2D and 0.92 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.649). For differentiating GS ≤ 3 + 4 from GS ≥ 4 + 3 tumors, the AUCs were 0.70 for 2D and 0.67 for 3D ROIs (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Use of a 3D ROI did not improve intrareader or interreader reproducibility or diagnostic performance compared with use of a 2D ROI for prostate ADC measurements. Interreader reproducibility of 2D ROIs was suboptimal nonetheless.

Comparing Dose-Length Product-Based and Monte Carlo Simulation Organ-Based Calculations of Effective Dose in 16- and 64-MDCT Examinations Using Automatic Tube Current Modulation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare dose-length product (DLP)-based calculation of effective dose (EDDLP) with Monte Carlo simulation organ-based calculation of effective dose (EDMCO) in 16- and 64-MDCT examinations, with the use of clinical examinations with automatic tube current modulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dose data were obtained from 50 consecutive unenhanced head CT examinations, unenhanced chest CT examinations, and unenhanced and contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations performed using 16- and 64-MDCT scanners, as well as from 50 pulmonary CT angiography (CTA) examinations performed using a 64-MDCT scanner and 31 pulmonary CTA examinations performed using a 16-MDCT scanner. The EDMCO and the mean patient effective diameter were calculated using commercially available software. The EDDLP was also calculated. Both the mean difference and percentage difference between EDDLP and EDMCO were calculated, and they were statistically compared according to patient sex, type of examination performed, and type of scanner used. RESULTS: EDDLP significantly underestimated the EDMCO by 0.3 mSv (19%) for men who underwent unenhanced head CT, 0.5 mSv (29%) for women who underwent unenhanced head CT, 0.9-1.4 mSv (9-13%) for men who underwent chest CT, and 4.7-4.8 mSv (39%) for women who underwent chest CT (p < 0.001). The EDDLP overestimated the EDMCO by 1.9-2.0 mSv (12-14%) for men who underwent abdominopelvic CT (p < 0.001), with no significant difference noted for women who underwent abdominopelvic CT's. No significant difference was noted in the percentage difference in ED between the 16- and 64-MDCT scanners (p ≥ 0.13). CONCLUSION: EDDLP underestimates EDMCO, the reference standard for dose calculation, by 19-39% in unenhanced head CT examinations and, among women, in chest CT examinations. EDDLP deviates from EDMCO by less than 15% for chest CT examinations of men and for abdominopelvic CT. These differences can be attributed to variable patient body habitus, automatic tube current modulation, and sex-neutral k-coefficients, and they should be considered when calculating ED, particularly in women.

CT of suspected thoracic acute aortic injury in the emergency department: is routine abdominopelvic imaging worth the additional collective radiation dose?

This study aimed to determine the incidence of non-traumatic acute aortic injury (AAI) extending from the chest into the abdomen or pelvis in emergency department (ED) patients with acute aortic syndrome (AAS), to estimate the effective dose of the abdominopelvic portion of these CT exams, and to compare the number needed to screen (NNS) with the collective population radiation dose of imaging those stations. All patients (n = 238) presenting to the ED with AAS between March 2014 and June 2015 who were imaged per CT AAI protocol (noncontrast and contrast-enhanced CT angiography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis) were retrospectively identified in this IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant study. The Stanford classification for positive cases of AAI was further subclassified based on chest, abdominal, or pelvic involvement. The dose length product (DLP) of each exam was used to estimate the dose of the abdominal and pelvic stations and the collective effective dose for the population. There were five cases of aortic dissection (AD) and two of intramural hematoma (IMH), with an AAI incidence of 2.9/100. Three cases of AAI were confined to the chest. Two cases of AAI were confined to the chest and abdomen, and two cases involved the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. There was only one case of AAI involving the ascending aorta that extended into the abdomen or pelvis. The number needed to screen to identify (a) AAI extending from the chest into the abdomen or pelvis was 59.5 and (b) Stanford A AAI extending into the abdomen or pelvis was 238. The estimated mean effective dose for the abdominopelvic stations were unenhanced abdomen 2.3 mSv, unenhanced pelvis 3.3 mSv, abdominal CTA 2.5 mSv, and pelvic CTA 3.6 mSv. The collective effective doses to the abdomen and pelvis with unenhanced CT and CTA in 59.5 patients and 238 patients were 761.6 and 3046.4 mSv, respectively. While the estimated mean effective dose for imaging of the abdominopelvic stations are low, the collective effective dose should also be considered. It may be beneficial to modify or omit routine unenhanced CT and/or CTA of the abdomen/pelvis in this patient population in the absence of abdominal symptoms, and image the abdomen and pelvis in positive thoracic cases only.