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.

Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

Gastric band slippage: a case-controlled study comparing new and old radiographic signs of this important surgical complication.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of four radiographic signs of gastric band slippage: abnormal phi angle, the "O sign," inferior displacement of the superolateral gastric band margin, and presence of an air-fluid level above the gastric band. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the electronic medical record identified 21 patients with a surgically proven slipped gastric band and 63 randomly-selected asymptomatic gastric band patients who had undergone barium swallow studies. These studies were evaluated for the four signs of band slippage by two independent radiologists who were blinded to clinical data. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each radiographic sign of band slippage. Interobserver agreement between radiologists was assessed using the Fleiss kappa statistic. RESULTS: In evaluating for gastric band slippage, an abnormal phi angle greater than 58° was 91-95% sensitive and 52-62% specific (κ = 0.78), the O sign was 33-48% sensitive but 97% specific (κ = 0.84), inferior displacement of the superolateral band margin by more than 2.4 cm from the diaphragm was 95% sensitive and 97-98% specific (κ = 0.97), and the presence of an air-fluid level was 95% sensitive and 100% specific (κ = 1.00). CONCLUSION: We report two previously undescribed radiographic signs of gastric band slippage that are both sensitive and specific for this important surgical complication and recommend that these signs should be incorporated into the imaging evaluation of gastric band patients.

The long-lasting effect of ferumoxytol on abdominal magnetic resonance imaging.

Ferumoxytol is a parenteral iron therapy that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia. The form of the iron, ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, causes T1, T2, and T2* shortening on magnetic resonance imaging, which can mimic hemosiderosis. We report such a case, with laboratory findings that demonstrate normal iron stores, and discuss the potential implications.

Reducing radiation dose at CT colonography: decreasing tube voltage to 100 kVp.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of a decrease in tube voltage from 120 kVp to 100 kVp on dose, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and three-dimensional (3D) image quality in patients undergoing computed tomographic (CT) colonography as well as to determine how these changes are affected by patient size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board-approved retrospective study included 63 consecutive patients who underwent CT colonography and who waived informed consent. Scanning was performed with patients in the supine (120 kVp) and prone (100 kVp) positions, with other parameters unchanged. Volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)), dose-length product (DLP), image noise, attenuation of selected materials, and CNR were compared with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. Two readers blinded to tube voltage independently assessed 3D endoluminal image quality. The k coefficients were calculated for interobserver agreement. Average image quality ratings were compared with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. All recorded data were stratified by patient anteroposterior diameter to determine effects of patient size. RESULTS: Decreasing tube voltage from 120 to 100 kVp resulted in a 20% decrease in CTDI(vol) (P < .001) and a 16% decrease in DLP (P < .001). Image noise increased by 32% (P < .001). Mean attenuation of tagged fluid increased from 395 to 487 HU (P < .001). There was no change in mean CNR of tagged fluid (17.1 at 120 kVp, 16.8 at 100 kVp; P = .37), regardless of patient size. The 3D image quality decreased slightly from a median score of 5 out of 5 to 4 out of 5 (P < .001). There was substantial interobserver agreement. CONCLUSION: A decrease in tube voltage from 120 to 100 kVp results in a significant decrease in radiation dose but only a minimal decrease in 3D image quality at all patient sizes. © RSNA, 2012.

Morphologic features of 211 adrenal masses at initial contrast-enhanced CT: can we differentiate benign from malignant lesions using imaging features alone?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine whether morphologic features of adrenal masses detected at initial contrast-enhanced MDCT can differentiate benign from malignant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred eleven adrenal masses (1-4 cm) detected during standard contrast-enhanced MDCT with a proven final diagnosis were retrospectively identified in 188 patients through a computer search of CT, PET/CT, and pathology reports. Three authors blinded to the diagnoses independently reviewed the contrast-enhanced MDCT images of the adrenal masses and evaluated their morphologic features: lesion margin (smooth, lobulated, or irregular), density (homogeneous or heterogeneous), and additional features of central low density and enhancing rim. Using these criteria, the readers categorized each mass as probably benign, indeterminate, or suspicious. RESULTS: There were 171 (81%) benign and 40 (19%) malignant adrenal masses. All malignant masses were metastases diagnosed in patients with known extraadrenal malignancy. For individual morphologic features in diagnosing malignancy, irregular margins had 30-33% sensitivity and 95-96% specificity and an enhancing rim had 5-13% sensitivity and 98-99% specificity. None of the imaging features was reliable in predicting benignity. When an adrenal mass was deemed suspicious by a reader, the sensitivities for malignancy ranged from 54% to 74% and specificities from 96% to 97%. Notably, no malignant lesions occurred in patients without a known history of cancer. CONCLUSION: At routine contrast-enhanced MDCT, adrenal masses with irregular margins or a thick enhancing rim are likely to be malignant. Smooth margins and homogeneous density can be seen in both benign and malignant adrenal masses and are insufficient for characterization.

Dose reduction methods for CT colonography.

Patients, referring physicians, the media, and government agencies have all expressed concern over the risks of medical radiation, particularly as it relates to CT. This concern is particularly paramount when associated with a screening examination such as CT colonography. These theoretical risks must be weighed realistically against the substantial benefits of colon cancer screening as well as against the risks inherent in the major alternative screening option, optical colonoscopy. When put into perspective, the risk-benefit ratio is highly in favor of the performance of CT colonography. Nevertheless, in following the ALARA principle, there is an ever increasing armamentarium of options that can be employed in the pursuit of CT radiation dose reduction, all of which can be used in many synergistic combinations allowing for dose reduction while simultaneously preserving image quality and minimizing image noise. After a brief tutorial on estimating radiation dose, various strategies will be discussed including reductions in tube current and tube voltage as well as the use of automatic dose modulation and iterative reconstruction. Other practical considerations will also be reviewed including proper patient isocentering, optimization of colonic insufflation to minimize additional decubitus scans, proper choice of scan volumes to avoid overranging, and variation of slice thickness and window width to minimize perceived image noise. Finally, a strategy for how to incrementally introduce these methods as well as a way to compare dose reduction efforts across institutions throughout the country will be offered.

The Public Perception of CT Colonography Versus Colonoscopy via Sentiment Analysis of Social Media.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand the public perception of CT colonography (CTC) in comparison with optical colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening technique. METHODS: In this observational study, all English-language tweets from January 1, 2015, until September 1, 2021, containing terms related to CTC and terms related to optical colonoscopy were collected. The tweets were given sentiment scores using Twitter-roBERTa-base, a natural language processing model. These scores were then used to classify tweets into positive, neutral, and negative categories. The numbers of negative, positive, and neutral tweets were tabulated. RESULTS: A total of 4,709 tweets from 2,194 users relating to CTC were collected. Of these tweets, 9.81% were negative, 68.52% were neutral, and 21.63% were positive. In comparison, a total of 445,969 tweets from 261,209 users were collected relating to optical colonoscopy. Of these tweets, 31.8% were negative, 51.3% were neutral, and 16.9% were positive. CONCLUSIONS: The public awareness of CTC remains limited in comparison with optical colonoscopy, with Twitter volume relating to CTC being about 1% the volume for optical colonoscopy. There was a higher proportion of negative tweets regarding colonoscopy. The lower proportion of negative tweets regarding CTC may be helpful in encouraging its use as an alternative to optical colonoscopy, with the aim of increasing uptake of colorectal cancer screening.

Imaging of colon and rectal cancer.

Colon and rectal cancer imaging has traditionally been performed to assess for distant disease (typically lung and liver metastases) and to assess the resectability of the primary tumor. With technological and scientific advances in imaging and the evolution of treatment options, the role of imaging has expanded. Radiologists are now expected to provide a precise description of primary tumor invasion extent, including adjacent organ invasion, involvement of the surgical resection plane, extramural vascular invasion, lymphadenopathy, and response to neoadjuvant treatment, and to monitor for recurrence after clinical complete response.

Rectal cancer lexicon 2023 revised and updated consensus statement from the Society of Abdominal Radiology Colorectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel.

The Society of Abdominal Radiology's Colorectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel (DFP) first published a rectal cancer lexicon paper in 2019. Since that time, the DFP has published revised initial staging and restaging reporting templates, and a new SAR user guide to accompany the rectal MRI synoptic report (primary staging). This lexicon update summarizes interval developments, while conforming to the original lexicon 2019 format. Emphasis is placed on primary staging, treatment response, anatomic terminology, nodal staging, and the utility of specific sequences in the MRI protocol. A discussion of primary tumor staging reviews updates on tumor morphology and its clinical significance, T1 and T3 subclassifications and their clinical implications, T4a and T4b imaging findings/definitions, terminology updates on the use of MRF over CRM, and the conundrum of the external sphincter. A parallel section on treatment response reviews the clinical significance of near-complete response and introduces the lexicon of "regrowth" versus "recurrence". A review of relevant anatomy incorporates updated definitions and expert consensus of anatomic landmarks, including the NCCN's new definition of rectal upper margin and sigmoid take-off. A detailed review of nodal staging is also included, with attention to tumor location relative to the dentate line and locoregional lymph node designation, a new suggested size threshold for lateral lymph nodes and their indications for use, and imaging criteria used to differentiate tumor deposits from lymph nodes. Finally, new treatment terminologies such as organ preservation, TNT, TAMIS and watch-and-wait management are introduced. This 2023 version aims to serve as a concise set of up-to-date recommendations for radiologists, and discusses terminology, classification systems, MRI and clinical staging, and the evolving concepts in diagnosis and treatment of rectal cancer.

Radiologic T staging of colon cancer: renewed interest for clinical practice.

Radiologic imaging, especially MRI, has long been the mainstay for rectal cancer staging and patient selection for neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgical resection. In contrast, colonoscopy and CT have been the standard for colon cancer diagnosis and metastasis staging with T and N staging often performed at the time of surgical resection. With recent clinical trials exploring the expansion of the use of neoadjuvant therapy beyond the anorectum to the remainder of the colon, the current and future state of colon cancer treatment is evolving with a renewed interest in evaluating the role radiology may play in the primary T staging of colon cancer. The performance of CT, CT colonography, MRI, and FDG PET-CT for colon cancer staging will be reviewed. N staging will also be briefly discussed. It is expected that accurate radiologic T staging will significantly impact future clinical decisions regarding the neoadjuvant versus surgical management of colon cancer.

MRI for Rectal Cancer: Staging, mrCRM, EMVI, Lymph Node Staging and Post-Treatment Response.

Rectal cancer is a relatively common malignancy in the United States. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of rectal cancer has evolved tremendously in recent years, and has become a key component of baseline staging and treatment planning. In addition to assessing the primary tumor and locoregional lymph nodes, rectal MRI can be used to help with risk stratification by identifying high-risk features such as extramural vascular invasion and can assess treatment response for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. As the practice of rectal MRI continues to expand further into academic centers and private practices, standard MRI protocols, and reporting are critical. In addition, it is imperative that the radiologists reading these cases work closely with surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists to ensure we are providing the best possible care to patients. This review aims to provide a broad overview of the role of MRI for rectal cancer.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Hernia.

Abdominopelvic hernias are common clinical entities composed of a wide variety of congenital, traumatic, and iatrogenic etiologies. Any weakness in the body wall may result in hernia of cavity contents with concomitant risks of morbidity and mortality. Presentations may be specific, palpable body wall mass/bulge, or vague, nonspecific pain through bowel obstruction. This document focuses on initial imaging of the adult population with signs of symptoms prompting suspicion of abdominopelvic hernia. Imaging of the abdomen and pelvis to evaluate defects is essential for prompt diagnosis and treatment. Often CT and ultrasound are the first-line modalities to quickly evaluate the abdomen and pelvis, providing for accurate diagnoses and management of patients. MRI protocols may be useful as first-line imaging studies, especially in patients with orthopedic instrumentation. Although often performed, abdominal radiographs and fluorographic procedures may provide indirect evidence of hernias but are usually not indicated for initial diagnosis of hernia. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging of Colorectal Cancer: 2021 Update.

Preoperative imaging of rectal carcinoma involves accurate assessment of the primary tumor as well as distant metastatic disease. Preoperative imaging of nonrectal colon cancer is most beneficial in identifying distant metastases, regardless of primary T or N stage. Surgical treatment remains the definitive treatment for colon cancer, while organ-sparing approach may be considered in some rectal cancer patients based on imaging obtained before and after neoadjuvant treatment. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Update to the structured MRI report for primary staging of rectal cancer : Perspective from the SAR Disease Focused Panel on Rectal and Anal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To review existing structured MRI reports for primary staging of rectal cancer and create a new, freely available structured report based on multidisciplinary expert opinion and literature review. METHODS: Twenty abdominal imaging experts from the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR)'s Disease Focused Panel (DFP) on Rectal and Anal Cancer completed a questionnaire and participated in a subsequent consensus meeting based on the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Twenty-two items were classified via a group survey as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" (defined by ≥ 70% consensus), or "needs group discussion" (defined by < 70% consensus). Certain items were also discussed with multidisciplinary team members from colorectal surgery, oncology and pathology. RESULTS: After completion of the questionnaire, 16 (72%) items required further discussion (< 70% consensus). Following group discussion, consensus was achieved for 21 (95%) of the items. Based on the consensus meeting, a revised structured report was developed. The most significant modifications included (1) Exclusion of the T2/early T3 category; (2) Replacement of the term "circumferential resection margin (CRM)" with "mesorectal fascia (MRF)"; (3) A revised definition of "mucinous content"; (4) Creation of two distinct categories for suspicious lymph nodes (LNs) and tumor deposits; and (5) Classification of suspicious extra-mesorectal LNs by anatomic location. CONCLUSION: The SAR DFP on Rectal and Anal Cancer recommends using this newly updated reporting template for primary MRI staging of rectal cancer.

The prevalence and clinical significance of noncardiac findings on cardiac MRI.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence, nature, and clinical significance of noncardiac findings (NCFs) at cardiac MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 240 consecutive, clinically indicated cardiac MRI examinations conducted over a 21-month period. All noncardiac findings (NCFs) were recorded. Those findings that were included in the report impressions were regarded as clinically important (INCF). Electronic medical records and related imaging studies were then reviewed for all patients having INCFs to determine their actual clinical significance. A finding was significant (SNCF) if it was associated with a new diagnosis, treatment, or intervention. The prevalences of findings in the neck, chest, and abdomen were determined. RESULTS: We found 162 NCFs in 104 studies (43%), of which 94 (58%) were INCFs, and 16 (10%) were SNCFs. There was at least one INCF in 65 studies (27%)--67% of which were new--and at least one SNCF in 13 studies (5%). Compared with younger patients, patients 60 years and older were much more likely to have INCFs (43% vs 17%) and SNCFs (12% vs 1%). Overall, 29% of NCFs were in the abdomen, 70% in the chest, and 1% in the neck. The most common INCFs were pleural effusion (n = 26), air-space disease or atelectasis (n = 13), and adenopathy (n = 9). Five new cases of cancer were diagnosed, including lung (n = 2), lymphoma (n = 2), and thyroid (n = 1). CONCLUSION: NCFs are commonly encountered on cardiac MRI studies, many of which are clinically relevant. Proper recognition of NCFs is critical to the comprehensive management of patients referred for cardiac MRI.

Fluid tagging for CT colonography: effectiveness of a 2-hour iodinated oral preparation after incomplete optical colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the distal extent and attenuation of bowel opacification achieved after administration of a single low volume dose of oral contrast 2 hours before computed tomographic colonography (CTC) after incomplete optical colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective study included 144 patients undergoing CTC after incomplete colonoscopy from April 2006 to July 2008 at 2 separate medical centers. Each patient received 20 to 30 mL of diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution 2 hours before being scanned. RESULTS: The distalmost extent of opacification was: stomach/small bowel, n = 13; cecum, n = 2; ascending colon, n = 7; transverse colon, n = 19; descending colon, n = 14; sigmoid colon, n = 24; rectum, n = 65. The mean attenuation of each opacified segment was: cecum, 449 Hounsfield units (HU); ascending colon, 474 HU; transverse colon, 468 HU; descending colon, 421 HU; sigmoid colon, 391 HU; and rectum, 382 HU. In 103 (71.5%) patients, oral contrast reached the distal colon (descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum). The oral contrast did not reach the colon in only 13 (9.0%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of a small volume hyperosmolar oral contrast agent 2 hours before CTC results in satisfactory colonic opacification in the majority of patients. Adding same-day fluid tagging in incomplete colonoscopy patients presenting for completion CTC should result in adequate fluid opacification for most of the colon, especially proximal segments not visualized at the time of incomplete colonoscopy.