Comparison of a Deep Learning-Accelerated vs. Conventional T2-Weighted Sequence in Biparametric MRI of the Prostate.

BACKGROUND: Demand for prostate MRI is increasing, but scan times remain long even in abbreviated biparametric MRIs (bpMRI). Deep learning can be leveraged to accelerate T2-weighted imaging (T2WI). PURPOSE: To compare conventional bpMRIs (CL-bpMRI) with bpMRIs including a deep learning-accelerated T2WI (DL-bpMRI) in diagnosing prostate cancer. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Eighty consecutive men, mean age 66 years (47-84) with suspected prostate cancer or prostate cancer on active surveillance who had a prostate MRI from December 28, 2020 to April 28, 2021 were included. Follow-up included prostate biopsy or stability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for 1 year. FIELD STRENGTH AND SEQUENCES: A 3 T MRI. Conventional axial and coronal T2 turbo spin echo (CL-T2), 3-fold deep learning-accelerated axial and coronal T2-weighted sequence (DL-T2), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with b = 50 sec/mm2 , 1000 sec/mm2 , calculated b = 1500 sec/mm2 . ASSESSMENT: CL-bpMRI and DL-bpMRI including the same conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were presented to three radiologists (blinded to acquisition method) and to a deep learning computer-assisted detection algorithm (DL-CAD). The readers evaluated image quality using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = nondiagnostic, 4 = excellent) and graded lesions using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1. DL-CAD identified and assigned lesions of PI-RADS 3 or greater. STATISTICAL TESTS: Quality metrics were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared using Delong's test. SIGNIFICANCE: P = 0.05. RESULTS: Eighty men were included (age: 66 ± 9 years; 17/80 clinically significant prostate cancer). Overall image quality results by the three readers (CL-T2, DL-T2) are reader 1: 3.72 ± 0.53, 3.89 ± 0.39 (P = 0.99); reader 2: 3.33 ± 0.82, 3.31 ± 0.74 (P = 0.49); reader 3: 3.67 ± 0.63, 3.51 ± 0.62. In the patient-based analysis, the reader results of AUC are (CL-bpMRI, DL-bpMRI): reader 1: 0.77, 0.78 (P = 0.98), reader 2: 0.65, 0.66 (P = 0.99), reader 3: 0.57, 0.60 (P = 0.52). Diagnostic statistics from DL-CAD (CL-bpMRI, DL-bpMRI) are sensitivity (0.71, 0.71, P = 1.00), specificity (0.59, 0.44, P = 0.05), positive predictive value (0.23, 0.24, P = 0.25), negative predictive value (0.88, 0.88, P = 0.48). CONCLUSION: Deep learning-accelerated T2-weighted imaging may potentially be used to decrease acquisition time for bpMRI. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Shear-wave elastography for the estimation of liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease: determining accuracy and ideal site for measurement.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of shear-wave elastography (SWE) for staging liver fibrosis in patients with diffuse liver disease (including patients with hepatitis C virus [HCV]) and to determine the relative accuracy of SWE measurements obtained from different hepatic acquisition sites for staging liver fibrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this single-institution prospective study, which was performed between January 2010 and March 2013 in 136 consecutive patients who underwent SWE before their scheduled liver biopsy (age range, 18-76 years; mean age, 49 years; 70 men, 66 women). Informed consent was obtained from all patients. SWE measurements were obtained at four sites in the liver. Biopsy specimens were reviewed in a blinded manner by a pathologist using METAVIR criteria. SWE measurements and biopsy results were compared by using the Spearman correlation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: SWE values obtained at the upper right lobe showed the highest correlation with estimation of fibrosis (r = 0.41, P < .001). Inflammation and steatosis did not show any correlation with SWE values except for values from the left lobe, which showed correlation with steatosis (r = 0.24, P = .004). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) in the differentiation of stage F2 fibrosis or greater, stage F3 fibrosis or greater, and stage F4 fibrosis was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68, 0.86), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.91), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.95), respectively, for all subjects who underwent liver biopsy. The corresponding AUCs for the subset of patients with HCV were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.92), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.95), and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.00). The adjusted AUCs for differentiating stage F2 or greater fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease and those with HCV were 0.84 and 0.87, respectively. CONCLUSION: SWE estimates of liver stiffness obtained from the right upper lobe showed the best correlation with liver fibrosis severity and can potentially be used as a noninvasive test to differentiate intermediate degrees of liver fibrosis in patients with liver disease.

Comparison of intra- and inter-reader agreement of abbreviated versus comprehensive MRCP for pancreatic cyst surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare inter- and intra-reader agreement of abbreviated MRCP (aMRCP) with comprehensive MRI (cMRCP) protocol for detection of worrisome features, high-risk stigmata, and concomitant pancreatic cancer in pancreatic cyst surveillance. METHODS: 151 patients (104 women, mean age: 69[10] years) with baseline and follow-up contrast-enhanced MRIs were included. This comprised 138 patients under cyst surveillance with 5-year follow-up showing no pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), 6 with pancreatic cystic lesion-derived malignancy, and 7 with concomitant PDAC. The aMRCP protocol used four sequences (axial and coronal Half-Fourier Single-shot Turbo-spin-Echo, axial T1 fat-saturated pre-contrast, and 3D-MRCP), while cMRCP included all standard sequences, including post-contrast. Three blinded abdominal radiologists assessed baseline cyst characteristics, worrisome features, high-risk stigmata, and PDAC signs using both aMRCP and cMRCP, with a 2-week washout period. Intra- and inter-reader agreement were calculated using Fleiss' multi-rater kappa and Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC). 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Cyst size, growth, and abrupt main pancreatic duct transition had strong intra- and inter-reader agreement. Intra-reader agreement was ICC = 0.93-0.99 for cyst size, ICC = 0.71-1.00 for cyst growth, and kappa = 0.83-1.00 for abrupt duct transition. Inter-reader agreement for cyst size was ICC = 0.86 (aMRCP) and ICC = 0.83 (cMRCP), and for abrupt duct transition was kappa = 0.84 (aMRCP) and kappa = 0.69 (cMRCP). Thickened cyst wall, mural nodule and cyst-duct communication demonstrated varying intra-reader agreements and poor inter-reader agreements. CONCLUSION: aMRCP showed high intra- and inter-reader agreement for most pancreatic cyst parameters that highly rely on T2-weighted sequences.

Inter-reader agreement of pancreatic adenocarcinoma resectability assessment with photon counting versus energy integrating detector CT.

PURPOSE: To compare the inter-reader agreement of pancreatic adenocarcinoma resectability assessment at pancreatic protocol photon-counting CT (PCCT) with conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT). METHODS: A retrospective single institution database search identified all contrast-enhanced pancreatic mass protocol abdominal CT performed at an outpatient facility with both a PCCT and EID-CT from 4/11/2022 to 10/30/2022. Patients without pancreatic adenocarcinoma were excluded. Four fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists, blinded to CT type, independently assessed vascular tumor involvement (uninvolved, abuts ≤ 180°, encases > 180°; celiac, superior mesenteric artery (SMA), common hepatic artery (CHA), superior mesenteric vein (SMV), main portal vein), the presence/absence of metastases, overall tumor resectability (resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced, metastatic), and diagnostic confidence. Fleiss's kappa was used to calculate inter-reader agreement. CTDIvol was recorded. Radiation dose metrics were compared with a two-sample t-test. A p < .05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: 145 patients (71 men, mean[SD] age: 66[9] years) were included. There was substantial inter-reader agreement, for celiac artery, SMA, and SMV involvement at PCCT (kappa = 0.61-0.69) versus moderate agreement at EID-CT (kappa = 0.56-0.59). CHA had substantial inter-reader agreement at both PCCT (kappa = 0.67) and EIDCT (kappa = 0.70). For metastasis identification, radiologists had substantial inter-reader agreement at PCCT (kappa = 0.78) versus moderate agreement at EID-CT (kappa = 0.56). CTDIvol for PCCT and EID-CT were 16.9[7.4]mGy and 29.8[26.6]mGy, respectively (p < .001). CONCLUSION: There was substantial inter-reader agreement for involvement of 4/5 major peripancreatic vessels (celiac artery, SMA, CHA, and SMV) at PCCT compared with 2/5 for EID-CT. PCCT also afforded substantial inter-reader agreement for metastasis detection versus moderate agreement at EID-CT with statistically significant radiation dose reduction.

Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Colon screening by optical colonoscopy (OC) or computed tomographic colonography (CTC) requires a laxative bowel preparation, which inhibits screening participation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of detecting adenomas 6 mm or larger and patient experience of laxative-free, computer-aided CTC. DESIGN: Prospective test comparison of laxative-free CTC and OC. The CTC included electronic cleansing and computer-aided detection. Optical colonoscopy examinations were initially blinded to CTC results, which were subsequently revealed during colonoscope withdrawal; this method permitted reexamination to resolve discrepant findings. Unblinded OC served as a reference standard. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01200303) SETTING: Multicenter ambulatory imaging and endoscopy centers. PARTICIPANTS: 605 adults aged 50 to 85 years at average to moderate risk for colon cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Per-patient sensitivity and specificity of CTC and first-pass OC for detecting adenomas at thresholds of 10 mm or greater, 8 mm or greater, and 6 mm or greater; per-lesion sensitivity and survey data describing patient experience with preparations and examinations. RESULTS: For adenomas 10 mm or larger, per-patient sensitivity of CTC was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.99) and specificity was 0.85 (CI, 0.82 to 0.88); sensitivity of OC was 0.95 (CI, 0.77 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.89 (CI, 0.86 to 0.91). Sensitivity of CTC was 0.70 (CI, 0.53 to 0.83) for adenomas 8 mm or larger and 0.59 (CI, 0.47 to 0.70) for those 6 mm or larger; sensitivity of OC for adenomas 8 mm or larger was 0.88 (CI, 0.73 to 0.96) and 0.76 (CI, 0.64 to 0.85) for those 6 mm or larger. The specificity of OC at the threshold of 8 mm or larger was 0.91 and at 6 mm or larger was 0.94. Specificity for OC was greater than that for CTC, which was 0.86 at the threshold of 8 mm or larger and 0.88 at 6 mm or larger (P= 0.02). Reported participant experience for comfort and difficulty of examination preparation was better with CTC than OC. LIMITATIONS: There were 3 CTC readers. The survey instrument was not independently validated. CONCLUSION: Computed tomographic colonography was accurate in detecting adenomas 10 mm or larger but less so for smaller lesions. Patient experience was better with laxative-free CTC. These results suggest a possible role for laxative-free CTC as an alternate screening method.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Abnormal Liver Function Tests.

Liver function tests are commonly obtained in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Various overlapping lab patterns can be seen due to derangement of hepatocytes and bile ducts function. Imaging tests are pursued to identify underlying etiology and guide management based on the lab results. Liver function tests may reveal mild, moderate, or severe hepatocellular predominance and can be seen in alcoholic and nonalcoholic liver disease, acute hepatitis, and acute liver injury due to other causes. Cholestatic pattern with elevated alkaline phosphatase with or without elevated γ-glutamyl transpeptidase can be seen with various causes of obstructive biliopathy. Acute or subacute cholestasis with conjugated or unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia can be seen due to prehepatic, intrahepatic, or posthepatic causes. We discuss the initial and complementary imaging modalities to be used in clinical scenarios presenting with abnormal liver function tests. 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 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 where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Right Upper Quadrant Pain: 2022 Update.

Acute right upper quadrant pain is one of the most common presenting symptoms in hospital emergency departments, as well as outpatient settings. Although gallstone-related acute cholecystitis is a leading consideration in diagnosis, a myriad of extrabiliary sources including hepatic, pancreatic, gastroduodenal, and musculoskeletal should also be considered. This document focuses on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging studies performed specifically to evaluate acute right upper quadrant pain, with biliary etiologies including acute cholecystitis and its complications being the most common. An additional consideration of extrabiliary sources such as acute pancreatitis, peptic ulcer disease, ascending cholangitis, liver abscess, hepatitis, and painful liver neoplasms remain a diagnostic consideration in the right clinical setting. The use of radiographs, ultrasound, nuclear medicine, CT, and MRI for these indications are discussed. 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 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.

LI-RADS treatment response algorithm after first-line DEB-TACE: reproducibility and prognostic value at initial post-treatment CT/MRI.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the inter-reader reproducibility and prognostic accuracy of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (LR-TR) at the time of initial post-treatment evaluation following drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with HCC who underwent first-line DEB-TACE between January 2011 and December 2015. Six readers (three fellowship-trained radiologists and three radiology trainees) independently assessed lesion-level response in up to two treated lesions per LR-TR and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST)-target criteria, as well as patient-level response per mRECIST-overall criteria, on the initial post-treatment CT/MRI. Inter-reader agreement was calculated by Fleiss' multi-reader κ. We tested whether LR-TR, mRECIST-target, and mRECIST-overall response were associated with overall survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard model analyses. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients with 113 treated target lesions were included. Inter-reader agreement was moderate for LR-TR and mRECIST-overall (κ range 0.42-0.57), and substantial for mRECIST-target (κ range 0.62-0.66), among all three reader-groups: all readers, experienced readers, and less-experienced readers. LR-TR and mRECIST-target response were not significantly associated with overall survival regardless of reader experience (P > 0.05). In contrast, mRECIST-overall response was significantly associated with overall survival when assessed by all readers (P = 0.02) and experienced readers (P = 0.03), but not by the less-experienced readers (P = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Although LR-TR algorithm has moderate inter-reader reproducibility, it alone may not predict overall survival on the initial post-treatment CT/MRI after first-line DEB-TACE for HCC.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Epigastric Pain.

Epigastric pain can have multiple etiologies including myocardial infarction, pancreatitis, acute aortic syndromes, gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, gastritis, duodenal ulcer disease, gastric cancer, and hiatal hernia. This document focuses on the scenarios in which epigastric pain is accompanied by symptoms such as heartburn, regurgitation, dysphagia, nausea, vomiting, and hematemesis, which raise suspicion for gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, gastritis, duodenal ulcer disease, gastric cancer, or hiatal hernia. Although endoscopy may be the test of choice for diagnosing these entities, patients may present with nonspecific or overlapping symptoms, necessitating the use of imaging prior to or instead of endoscopy. The utility of fluoroscopic imaging, CT, MRI, and FDG-PET for these indications are discussed. 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.