CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS): Version 2023 Update.

The CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS) has withstood the test of time and proven to be a robust classification scheme for CT colonography (CTC) findings. C-RADS version 2023 represents an update on the scheme used for colorectal and extracolonic findings at CTC. The update provides useful insights gained since the implementation of the original system in 2005. Increased experience has demonstrated confusion on how to classify the mass-like appearance of the colon consisting of soft tissue attenuation that occurs in segments with acute or chronic diverticulitis. Therefore, the update introduces a new subcategory, C2b, specifically for mass-like diverticular strictures, which are likely benign. Additionally, the update simplifies extracolonic classification by combining E1 and E2 categories into an updated extracolonic category of E1/E2 since, irrespective of whether a finding is considered a normal variant (category E1) or an otherwise clinically unimportant finding (category E2), no additional follow-up is required. This simplifies and streamlines the classification into one category, which results in the same management recommendation.

Paris classification of colonic polyps using CT colonography: prospective cohort study of interobserver variation.

BACKGROUND: The Paris classification categorises colorectal polyp morphology. Interobserver agreement for Paris classification has been assessed at optical colonoscopy (OC) but not CT colonography (CTC). We aimed to determine the following: (1) interobserver agreement for the Paris classification using CTC between radiologists; (2) if radiologist experience influenced classification, gross polyp morphology, or polyp size; and (3) the extent to which radiologist classifications agreed with (a) colonoscopy and (b) a combined reference standard. METHODS: Following ethical approval for this non-randomised prospective cohort study, seven radiologists from three hospitals classified 52 colonic polyps using the Paris system. We calculated interobserver agreement using Fleiss kappa and mean pairwise agreement (MPA). Absolute agreement was calculated between radiologists; between CTC and OC; and between CTC and a combined reference standard using all available imaging, colonoscopic, and histopathological data. RESULTS: Overall interobserver agreement between the seven readers was fair (Fleiss kappa 0.33; 95% CI 0.30-0.37; MPA 49.7%). Readers with < 1500 CTC experience had higher interobserver agreement (0.42 (95% CI 0.35-0.48) vs. 0.33 (95% CI 0.25-0.42)) and MPA (69.2% vs 50.6%) than readers with ≥ 1500 experience. There was substantial overall agreement for flat vs protuberant polyps (0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68)) with a MPA of 87.9%. Agreement between CTC and OC classifications was only 44%, and CTC agreement with the combined reference standard was 56%. CONCLUSION: Radiologist agreement when using the Paris classification at CT colonography is low, and radiologist classification agrees poorly with colonoscopy. Using the full Paris classification in routine CTC reporting is of questionable value. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Interobserver agreement for radiologists using the Paris classification to categorise colorectal polyp morphology is only fair; routine use of the full Paris classification at CT colonography is questionable. KEY POINTS: • Overall interobserver agreement for the Paris classification at CT colonography (CTC) was only fair, and lower than for colonoscopy. • Agreement was higher for radiologists with < 1500 CTC experience and for larger polyps. There was substantial agreement when classifying polyps as protuberant vs flat. • Agreement between CTC and colonoscopic polyp classification was low (44%).

Diagnostic performance of sonographic activity scores for adult terminal ileal Crohn's disease compared to magnetic resonance and histological reference standards: experience from the METRIC trial.

OBJECTIVES: The simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease (SUS-CD) and bowel ultrasound score (BUSS) are promising intestinal ultrasound (IUS) indices of CD, but studied mainly in small settings with few sonographers. We compared SUS-CD and BUSS against histological and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) reference standards in a post hoc analysis of a prospective multicentre, multireader trial. METHODS: Participants recruited to the METRIC trial (ISRCTN03982913) were studied, including those with available terminal ileal (TI) biopsies. Sensitivity and specificity of SUS-CD and BUSS for TI CD activity were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), from the prospective observations of the original METRIC trial sonographers against the histological activity index (HAI) and the simplified magnetic resonance index of activity (sMARIA). RESULTS: We included 284 patients (median 31.5 years, IQR 23-46) from 8 centres, who underwent IUS and MRE. Of these, 111 patients had available terminal ileal biopsies with HAI scoring. Against histology, sensitivity and specificity for active disease were 79% (95% CI 69-86%) and 50% (31-69%) for SUS-CD, and 66% (56-75%) and 68% (47-84%) for BUSS, respectively. Compared to sMARIA, the sensitivity and specificity for active CD were 81% (74-86%) and 75% (66-83%) for SUS-CD, and 68% (61-74%) and 85% (76-91%) for BUSS, respectively. The sensitivity of SUS-CD was significantly greater than that of BUSS against HAI and sMARIA (p < 0.001), but its specificity was significantly lower than of BUSS against the MRE reference standard (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Particularly when compared to MRE activity scoring, SUS-CD and BUSS are promising tools in a real-world clinical setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: When tested using data from a multicentre, multireader diagnostic accuracy trial, the simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease (SUS-CD) and bowel ultrasound score (BUSS) were clinically viable intestinal ultrasound indices that were reasonably sensitive and specific for terminal ileal Crohn's disease, especially when compared to a magnetic resonance reference standard. KEY POINTS: The simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease and bowel ultrasound score are promising intestinal ultrasound indices of Crohn's disease but to date studied mainly in small settings with few sonographers. Compared to histology and the magnetic resonance reference standard in a multicentre, multireader setting, the sensitivity of simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease is significantly greater than that of bowel ultrasound score. The specificity of simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn's disease was significantly lower than that of bowel ultrasound score compared to the magnetic resonance enterography reference standard. The specificity of both indices was numerically higher when the magnetic resonance enterography reference standard was adopted.

Colorectal Cancer: Performance and Evaluation for CT Colonography Screening- A Multicenter Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training. Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6- and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience. Results A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.4% [278 of 655]; difference = 20.8%; 95% CI: 14.6, 27.0; P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 6 (66.4% [572 of 861] vs 50.5% [283 of 560]; difference = 13.0%; 95% CI: 7.4, 18.5; P < .001) and 12 (63.7% [310 of 487] vs 44.4% [187 of 421]; difference = 16.7%; 95% CI: 10.3, 23.1; P < .001) months. This beneficial effect applied to flat lesions (difference = 22.7%; 95% CI: 15.5, 29.9; P < .001) and was independent of career experience (≥1500 CTC scans: odds ratio = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.36; P = .22). Conclusion For radiologists evaluating CT colonography studies, a 1-day training intervention yielded sustained improvement in detection of clinically relevant colorectal neoplasia, independent of previous career experience. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02892721 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pickhardt in this issue. An earlier incorrect version appeared online and in print. This article was corrected on February 28, 2022.

Are preoperative CT variables associated with the success or failure of subsequent ventral hernia repair: nested case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: Systematic review of CT measurements to predict the success or failure of subsequent ventral hernia repair has found limited data available in the indexed literature. To rectify this, we investigated multiple preoperative CT metrics to identify if any were associated with postoperative reherniation. METHODS: Following ethical permission, we identified patients who had undergone ventral hernia repair and had preoperative CT scanning available. Two radiologists made multiple measurements of the hernia and abdominal musculature from these scans, including loss of domain. Patients were divided subsequently into two groups, defined by hernia recurrence at 1-year subsequent to surgery. Hypothesis testing investigated any differences between CT measurements from each group. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients (95 male) were identified, 34 (18%) whose hernia had recurred by 1-year. Only three of 34 CT measurements were significantly different when patients whose hernia had recurred were compared to those who had not; these significant findings were assumed contingent on multiple testing. In particular, preoperative hernia volume (recurrence 155.3 cc [IQR 355.65] vs. no recurrence 78.2 [IQR 303.52], p = 0.26) nor loss of domain, whether calculated using the Tanaka (recurrence 0.02 [0.04] vs. no recurrence 0.009 [0.04], p = 0.33) or Sabbagh (recurrence 0.019 [0.05] vs. no recurrence 0.009 [0.04], p = 0.25) methods, differed between significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative CT measurements of ventral hernia morphology, including loss of domain, appear unrelated to postoperative recurrence. It is likely that the importance of such measurements to predict recurrence is outweighed by other patient factors and surgical reconstruction technique. KEY POINTS: • Preoperative CT scanning is often performed for ventral hernia but systematic review revealed little data regarding whether CT variables predict postoperative reherniation. • We found that the large majority of CT measurements, including loss of domain, did not differ significantly between patients whose hernia did and did not recur. • It is likely that the importance of CT measurements to predict recurrence is outweighed by other patient factors and surgical reconstruction technique.

The development of a minimum dataset for MRI reporting of anorectal fistula: a multi-disciplinary, expert consensus process.

There are a range of sphincter-preserving procedures available to treat anorectal fistula, some of which can be precluded, or rendered more optimal by specific features of fistula anatomy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the gold standard modality for assessing anorectal fistula. To maximise clinical utility, the MRI report should accurately describe these clinically relevant features. We aimed to develop a minimum dataset for reporting MRI of anorectal fistula, in order to improve the assessment and management of these patients. A longlist of 70 potential items for the minimum dataset was generated through systematic review of the literature. This longlist was presented to radiologists, surgeons and gastroenterologists in an online survey to understand the features that shape current clinical practice. The longlist and survey results were then presented to an expert consensus panel to generate the final minimum dataset through discussion and anonymous voting. The final minimum dataset details the general characteristics, features of the internal and external openings, path of the fistula through the sphincters and any associated extensions and collections that should be described in all MRI reports for anal fistula. Additional surgical and perianal Crohn's disease subsets were developed to indicate the features that aid decision-making for these patients, in addition to a minimum dataset for the clinical request. This study represents a multi-disciplinary approach to developing a minimum dataset for MRI reporting of anal fistula, highlighting the most important features to report that can assist in clinical decision-making. KEY POINTS: • This paper recommends the minimum features that should be included in all MRI reports for the assessment of anal fistula, including Parks classification, number of tracts, features of the internal and external opening, path of the tract through the sphincters, the presence and features of extensions and collections. • Additional features that aid decision-making for surgery or in the presence of Crohn's disease have been identified. • The items that should be included when requesting an MRI are specified.

The Clinical Relevance of Manometric Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction Can Be Determined Using Rapid Drink Challenge and Solid Swallows.

INTRODUCTION: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) defined on high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) poses a management dilemma given marked variability in clinical manifestations. We hypothesized that findings from provocative testing (rapid drink challenge and solid swallows) could determine the clinical relevance of EGJOO. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we included consecutive subjects between May 2016 and January 2020 with EGJOO. Standard HRM with 5-mL water swallows was followed by provocative testing. Barium esophagography findings were obtained. Cases with structural obstruction were separated from functional EGJOO, with the latter categorized as symptom-positive or symptom-negative. Only symptom-positive subjects were considered for achalasia-type therapies. Sensitivity and specificity for clinically relevant EGJOO during 5-mL water swallows, provocative testing, and barium were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 121 EGJOO cases, 76% had dysphagia and 25% had holdup on barium. Ninety-seven cases (84%) were defined as functional EGJOO. Symptom-positive EGJOO subjects were more likely to demonstrate abnormal motility and pressurization patterns and to reproduce symptoms during provocative testing, but not with 5-mL water swallows. Twenty-nine (30%) functional EGJOO subjects underwent achalasia-type therapy, with symptomatic response in 26 (90%). Forty-eight (49%) functional EGJOO cases were managed conservatively, with symptom remission in 78%. Although specificity was similar, provocative testing demonstrated superior sensitivity in identifying treatment responders from spontaneously remitting EGJOO (85%) compared with both 5-mL water swallows (54%; P < 0.01) and barium esophagography (54%; P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Provocative testing during HRM is highly accurate in identifying clinically relevant EGJOO that benefits from therapy and should be routinely performed as part of the manometric protocol.

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS): observational case series findings on MR defecography.

OBJECTIVE: Radiological findings in solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) are well described for evacuation proctography (EP) but sparse for magnetic resonance defecography (MRD). In order to rectify this, we describe the spectrum of MRD findings in patients with histologically proven SRUS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRD from twenty-eight patients (18 female; 10 males) with histologically confirmed SRUS were identified. MRD employed a 1.5-T magnet and a standardized technique with the rectal lumen filled with gel and imaged sagittally in the supine position, before, during, and after attempted rectal evacuation. A single radiologist observer with 5 years' experience in pelvic floor imaging made the anatomical and functional measurements. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (10 female) demonstrated internal rectal intussusception and 3 patients (11%) demonstrated complete external rectal prolapse. Anterior rectoceles were noted in 12 female patients (43%). Associated anterior and middle compartment weakness (evidenced by excessive descent) was observed in 18 patients (64%). Cystocele was found in 14 patients (50%) and uterine prolapse was noted in 7 patients (25%). Enterocoeles were detected in 5 patients (18%) and peritoneocoele in 5 patients (18%). None had sigmoidocoele. Sixteen patients (57%) demonstrated delayed voiding and 13 patients (46%) incomplete voiding, suggesting defecatory dyssynergia. CONCLUSION: MRD can identify and grade both rectal intussusception and dyssynergia in SRUS, and also depict associated anterior and/or middle compartment descent. Distinction between structural and functional findings has important therapeutic implications. KEY POINTS: MRD can identify and grade both rectal intussusception and dyssynergia in patients with SRUS. MRD is an acceptable substitute to evacuation proctography in assessing anorectal dysfunctions when attempting to avoid ionizing radiation. SRUS influences the pelvic floor globally. MRD depicts associated anterior and/or middle compartment prolapse.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

How to avoid describing your radiological research study incorrectly.

This review identifies and examines terms used to describe a radiological research "study" or "trial". A taxonomy of clinical research descriptions is explained with reference to medical imaging examples. Because many descriptive terms have precise methodological implications, it is important that these terms are understood by readers and used correctly by researchers, so that the reader is not misled. KEY POINTS: • Multiple different terms are being used to describe radiological research "studies" and "trials", and many of these terms have precise methodological implications. • Radiological researchers sometimes use titles that describe their research incorrectly. This can mislead the reader as to what was actually done. • It is important that readers and researchers understand the correct taxonomy of clinical research and that researchers adopt the correct description for their work.

Traditional Serrated Adenomas on CT Colonography: International Multicenter Experience With This Rare Colorectal Neoplasm.

OBJECTIVE. Serrated polyps include hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated polyps, and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs). Hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated polyps account for approximately 99% of all serrated lesions; TSAs are rare. However, both sessile serrated polyps and TSAs are now recognized as precursor lesions to carcinogenesis, representing approximately one-fourth of all sporadic colorectal cancers. We report what is, to our knowledge, the first series describing the characteristics of CTAs on CT colonography (CTC). MATERIALS AND METHODS. An international, multicenter, retrospective review of CT colonography-detected TSAs diagnosed between 2008 and 2018 was conducted. Data collected included patient demographics and data from CTC, optical colonoscopy, and pathologic analysis. RESULTS. A total of 67 proven TSAs in 58 patients (mean age, 67 years) were identified. The majority (66%) were located in the distal colon (descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum), and their mean size was 19 mm (range, 3-80 mm). Small (< 10 mm) TSAs typically had a simple sessile or pedunculated morphologic appearance, whereas large (≥ 10 mm) TSAs tended to be more lobulated and irregular, pedunculated, or carpetlike. The majority (88%) showed at least some contrast medium surface coating. CONCLUSION. We report what we believe to be the first multicenter experience describing the characteristics of TSAs on CTC. Unlike sessile serrated lesions, TSAs are more often left-sided and tend to be more lobulated and irregular. However, like sessile serrated polyps, most TSAs show contrast medium surface coating. Detection of these rare lesions on CTC is important, given their malignant potential.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]). METHODS: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon. CONCLUSIONS: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.

Computed tomographic colonography: how many and how fast should radiologists report?

OBJECTIVES: To determine if polyp detection at computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is associated with (a) the number of CTC examinations interpreted per day and (b) the length of time spent scrutinising the scan. METHODS: Retrospective observational study from two hospitals. We extracted Radiology Information System data for CTC examinations from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015. For each examination, we determined how many prior CTCs had been interpreted by the reporting radiologist on that day and how long radiologists spent on interpretation. For each radiologist, we calculated their referral rate (proportion deemed positive for 6 mm+ polyp/cancer), positive predictive value (PPV) and endoscopic/surgically proven polyp detection rate (PDR). We also calculated the mean time each radiologist spent interpreting normal studies ("negative interpretation time"). We used multilevel logistic regression to investigate the relationship between the number of scans reported each day, negative interpretation time and referral rate, PPV and PDR. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred ninety-one scans were interpreted by seven radiologists; 892 (17.2%) were reported as positive, and 534 (10.3%) had polyps confirmed. Both referral rate and PDR reduced as more CTCs were reported on a given day (p < 0.001), the odds reducing by 7% for each successive CTC interpreted. Radiologists reporting more slowly than their colleagues detected more polyps (p = 0.028), with each 16% increase in interpretation time associated with a 1% increase in PDR. PPV was unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting multiple CTCs on a given day and rapid CTC interpretation are associated with decreased polyp detection. Radiologists should be protected from requirements to report too many CTCs or too quickly. KEY POINTS: • CT colonography services should protect radiologists from a need to report too fast (> 20 min per case) or for too long (> 4 cases consecutively without a break). • Professional bodies should consider introducing a target minimum interpretation time for CT colonography examinations as a quality marker.

Quantified Terminal Ileal Motility during MR Enterography as a Biomarker of Crohn Disease Activity: Prospective Multi-Institution Study.

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of MRI-quantified small bowel motility for Crohn disease activity against endoscopic and histopathologic reference standards. Materials and Methods For this prospective study, 82 participants (median age, 31 years; range, 16 to 70 years; 42 males [median age, 31 years; range, 17 to 70 years] and 40 females [median age, 31 years; range, 16 to 63 years) underwent colonoscopy and MR enterography within 14 days (from October 2011 to March 2014) at two centers. The Crohn disease endoscopic index of severity (CDEIS), histopathologic activity score (endoscopic biopsy acute histologic inflammatory score [EAIS]), and MR index of activity (MaRIA) were scored in the terminal ileum. Terminal ileal motility was quantified by using an image registration based-motility assessment algorithm (hereafter, Motility). Sensitivity and specificity of Motility (˂0.3 arbitrary units) and MaRIA (≥7 and ≥11) for disease activity (CDEIS ≥4 or EAIS ≥1) were compared by using the McNemar test. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and areas under the curve were compared. Motility was correlated with reference standards by using Spearman rank estimates. Results Terminal ileal Motility was negatively correlated with EAIS (r =-0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7, -0.5) and CDEIS (r = -0.59; 95% CI: 0.7, -0.4). With CDEIS as the standard of reference, Motility had higher sensitivity than did MaRIA (≥11) (93% vs 78%, respectively; P = .03), but lower specificity (61% vs 81%, respectively; P = .04). With EAIS as the standard of reference, Motility had higher sensitivity than did MaRIA (≥7) (92% vs 75%, respectively; P = .03) but similar specificity (71% vs 74%, respectively; P >.99). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for Motility was 0.86 and 0.87 with CDEIS and EAIS as the standard of reference, respectively. Conclusion The terminal ileal Motility score showed good agreement with endoscopic and histopathologic activity in Crohn disease. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Imaging complex ventral hernias, their surgical repair, and their complications.

Complex ventral hernia (CVH) describes large, anterior, ventral hernias. The incidence of CVH is rising rapidly due to increasing laparotomy rates in ever older, obese and co-morbid patients. Surgeons with a specific interest in CVH repair are now frequently referring these patients for imaging, normally computed tomography scanning. This review describes what information is required from preoperative imaging and the surgical options and techniques used for CVH repair, so that radiologists understand the postoperative appearances specific to CVH and are aware of the common complications following surgery. KEY POINTS: • Complex ventral hernia (CVH) describes large abdominal wall hernias (e.g. width ≥10cm). • CVH patients are being referred increasingly for preoperative and postoperative imaging. • Imaging is pivotal to characterise preoperative morphology and quantify loss of domain. • Postoperative imaging appearances are contingent on the surgical methods used for CVH repair. • Postoperative complications are depicted easily by imaging.

Rapid volumetric photoacoustic tomographic imaging with a Fabry-Perot ultrasound sensor depicts peripheral arteries and microvascular vasomotor responses to thermal stimuli.

PURPOSE: To determine if a new photoacoustic imaging (PAI) system successfully depicts (1) peripheral arteries and (2) microvascular circulatory changes in response to thermal stimuli. METHODS: Following ethical permission, 8 consenting subjects underwent PAI of the dorsalis pedis (DP) artery, and 13 completed PAI of the index fingertip. Finger images were obtained after immersion in warm (30-35 °C) or cold (10-15 °C) water to promote vasodilation or vasoconstriction. The PAI instrument used a Fabry-Perot interferometeric ultrasound sensor and a 30-Hz 750-nm pulsed excitation laser. Volumetric images were acquired through a 14 × 14 × 14-mm volume over 90 s. Images were evaluated subjectively and quantitatively to determine if PAI could depict cold-induced vasoconstriction. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of resolvable vessels was measured. RESULTS: Fingertip vessels were visible in all participants, with mean FWHM of 125 µm. Two radiologists used PAI to correctly identify vasoconstricted fingertip capillary beds with 100% accuracy (95% CI 77.2-100.0%, p < 0.001). The number of voxels exhibiting vascular signal was significantly smaller after cold water immersion (cold: 5263 voxels; warm: 363,470 voxels, p < 0.001). The DP artery was visible in 7/8 participants (87.5%). CONCLUSION: PAI achieves rapid, volumetric, high-resolution imaging of peripheral limb vessels and the microvasculature and is responsive to vasomotor changes induced by thermal stimuli. KEY POINTS: • Fabry-Perot interferometer-based photoacoustic imaging (PAI) generates volumetric, high-resolution images of the peripheral vasculature. • The system reliably detects thermally induced peripheral vasoconstriction (100% correct identification rate, p < 0.001). • Vessels measuring less than 100 µm in diameter can be depicted in vivo.