ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Hydronephrosis on Prior Imaging-Unknown Cause.

Initial imaging evaluation of hydronephrosis of unknown etiology is a complex subject and is dependent on clinical context. In asymptomatic patients, it is often best conducted via CT urography (CTU) without and with contrast, MR urography (MRU) without and with contrast, or scintigraphic evaluation with mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG3) imaging. For symptomatic patients, CTU without and with contrast, MRU without and with contrast, MAG3 scintigraphy, or ultrasound of the kidneys and bladder with Doppler imaging are all viable initial imaging studies. In asymptomatic pregnant patients, nonionizing imaging with US of the kidneys and bladder with Doppler imaging is preferred. Similarly, in symptomatic pregnant patients, US of the kidneys and bladder with Doppler imaging or MRU without contrast is the imaging study of choice, as both ionizing radiation and gadolinium contrast are avoided in pregnancy. 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® Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging of Prostate Cancer: 2022 Update.

Prostate cancer is second leading cause of death from malignancy after lung cancer in American men. The primary goal during pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer is disease detection, localization, establishing disease extent (both local and distant), and evaluating aggressiveness, which are the driving factors of patient outcomes such as recurrence and survival. Prostate cancer is typically diagnosed after the recognizing elevated serum prostate-specific antigen level or abnormal digital rectal examination. Tissue diagnosis is obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy, commonly with multiparametric MRI without or with intravenous contrast, which has recently been established as standard of care for detecting, localizing, and assessing local extent of prostate cancer. Although bone scintigraphy and CT are still typically used to detect bone and nodal metastases in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer, novel advanced imaging modalities including prostatespecific membrane antigen PET/CT and whole-body MRI are being more frequently utilized for this purpose with improved detection rates. 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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging and Surveillance of Testicular Cancer: 2021 Update.

The staging and surveillance of testicular cancer is a complex topic, which integrates clinical, biochemical, and imaging components. The use of imaging for staging and surveillance of testicular cancer is individually tailored to each patient by considering tumor histology and prognosis. This document discusses the rationale for use of imaging by imaging modality during the initial staging of testicular seminoma and nonseminoma tumors and during the planned surveillance of stage IA and IB testicular cancer by histological subtype integrating clinical suspicion for disease recurrence in surveillance protocols. 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.

Lower Interobserver Reliability for Nondimensional Intracystic Features Among Abdominal Radiologists for Characterizing Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for risk stratification of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). We assessed the interobserver agreement among radiologists in evaluating and risk stratifying IPMNs. METHODS: This single-center study evaluated 30 patients with IPMNs who had undergone MRI/MRCP, endoscopic ultrasound, and/or surgical resection. Six abdominal radiologists evaluated the MRI/MRCPs to document multiple parameters. The analysis applied Landis and Koch κ interpretation for categorical variables and intraclass correlation coefficient (r) for continuous variables. RESULTS: Radiologists demonstrated almost perfect agreement for location (κ = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.87), size (r = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98), and main pancreatic duct diameter (r = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Substantial agreement was observed for communication with the main pancreatic duct (κ = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and classification of IPMN subtype (κ = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86). Presence of intracystic nodules (κ = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.42) and wall thickening (κ = 0.09; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.18) reached only fair and slight agreement, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although MRI/MRCP is excellent in the evaluation of spatial aspects, there is lower reliability for nondimensional characteristics of IPMNs. These data support guideline-recommended complementary evaluation of IPMNs with MRI/MRCP and endoscopic ultrasound.

What is return to work? An investigation into the quantification of return to work.

PURPOSE: To describe and demonstrate issues with return to work (RTW) outcome metrics in common use among clinical researchers and injury compensation organisations. We also aim to describe a framework on which to capture relevant RTW information including current employment status and data on participation and maintenance. METHODS: Structured telephone interviews discussing participant health and vocational status were conducted following compensable transport-related injury. Participants who were working at the time of injury and took time off work because of their injuries (N = 414) were asked questions relating to their work participation and maintenance, including length of continuous employment, hours worked and duties performed before and after injury. A series of RTW metrics was developed and applied to survey data. Rates of RTW according to each metric were calculated. RESULTS: Eighty-four per cent of participants had achieved some employment since their injury, and 74% were working at the time of the survey. In contrast, only 58% of participants were working the same hours as prior to their injury and had been doing so for at least 3 months. These data show that different impressions of rehabilitative success can be obtained depending on the criterion used to define RTW suggesting that reliance on a single RTW index (e.g. 'are you currently working?') will not represent important characteristics of employment. CONCLUSION: A multi-layered approach to measuring RTW that includes data on reasons for not working, length of continuous employment, hours and duties performed after injury provides greater insight into the vocational status of injured individuals compared to single metrics or outcomes that fail to capture key detail on motives and participation. This information can assist clinicians to more accurately monitor the progress of rehabilitation following injury and compensation schemes to more effectively monitor their performance.