ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass, No Acute Symptoms: 2023 Update.

Asymptomatic adnexal masses are commonly encountered in daily radiology practice. Although the vast majority of these masses are benign, a small subset have a risk of malignancy, which require gynecologic oncology referral for best treatment outcomes. Ultrasound, using a combination of both transabdominal, transvaginal, and duplex Doppler technique can accurately characterize the majority of these lesions. MRI with and without contrast is a useful complementary modality that can help characterize indeterminate lesions and assess the risk of malignancy is those that are suspicious. 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® Clinically suspected adnexal mass, no acute symptoms: 2023 update

Asymptomatic adnexal masses are commonly encountered in daily radiology practice. Although the vast majority of these masses are benign, a small subset have a risk of malignancy, which require gynecologic oncology referral for best treatment outcomes. Ultrasound, using a combination of both transabdominal, transvaginal, and duplex Doppler technique can accurately characterize the majority of these lesions. MRI with and without contrast is a useful complementary modality that can help characterize indeterminate lesions and assess the risk of malignancy is those that are suspicious. 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.

Percutaneous Core Biopsy Devices: A Detailed Review and Comparison of Different Needle Designs.

ABSTRACT: Percutaneous core-needle biopsy (PCNB) plays a growing and essential role in many medical specialties. Proper and effective use of various PCNB devices requires basic understanding of how they function. Current literature lacks a detailed overview and illustration of needle function and design differences, a potentially valuable reference for users ranging from early trainees to experts who are less familiar with certain devices. This pictorial aims to provide such an overview, using diagrams and magnified photographs to illustrate the intricate components of these devices. Following a brief historical review of biopsy needle technology for context, we emphasize distinctions in design between 2 major classes of PCNB devices (side- and end-cutting devices), focusing on practical implications for how each device is most effectively used. We believe a nuanced understanding of biopsy device function sheds light on certain lingering ambiguities in biopsy practice, such as the optimal needle gauge in organ biopsy, the benefits and risks associated with coaxial technique, the impact of needle selection and technique on bleeding, and the risk of unsuccessful sampling. In a subsequent pictorial, we will draw on the concepts presented here to illustrate examples of biopsy needle failure and how unrecognized needle failure can be an important and often preventable cause of increased biopsy risk and lower tissue yield.

O-RADS US v2022: An Update from the American College of Radiology's Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US Committee.

First published in 2019, the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized lexicon for ovarian and adnexal lesions, enables stratification of these lesions with use of a numeric score based on morphologic features to indicate the risk of malignancy, and offers management guidance. This risk stratification system has subsequently been validated in retrospective studies and has yielded good interreader concordance, even with users of different levels of expertise. As use of the system increased, it was recognized that an update was needed to address certain clinical challenges, clarify recommendations, and incorporate emerging data from validation studies. Additional morphologic features that favor benignity, such as the bilocular feature for cysts without solid components and shadowing for solid lesions with smooth contours, were added to O-RADS US for optimal risk-appropriate scoring. As O-RADS US 4 has been shown to be an appropriate cutoff for malignancy, it is now recommended that lower-risk O-RADS US 3 lesions be followed with US if not excised. For solid lesions and cystic lesions with solid components, further characterization with MRI is now emphasized as a supplemental evaluation method, as MRI may provide higher specificity. This statement summarizes the updates to the governing concepts, lexicon terminology and assessment categories, and management recommendations found in the 2022 version of O-RADS US.

Thyroid Nodule Margin Assessment Using ACR TI-RADS: Adding Points for Macrolobulation Impairs Performance.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the performance of ACR TI-RADS when points for lobulated margins are applied only when the margins meet a quantified measure of margin microlobulation and not applied when nodules only demonstrate macrolobulation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed ultrasound and pathology records (May 01, 2018 to July 31, 2020) to find all thyroid nodules at one institution characterized as having lobulated margins using the ACR TI-RADS lexicon and subsequently undergoing fine needle aspiration (FNA). Nodule margins were evaluated to note the presence or absence of microlobulation, quantitatively defined as a protrusion with a base <2.5 mm in length. The impact to detection of malignant nodules and avoidance of benign FNA when margin points for lobulation were added only when microlobulated was analyzed. RESULTS: 58 of 516 thyroid nodules undergoing US-guided FNA were classified as lobulated, comprising the study population. 21 (36.2%) had microlobulated margins, with 12 of the 21 (57.1%) being malignant. Comparatively, of the 37 nodules showing only macrolobulated margins without microlobulation, only 2 (5.4%) were malignant (P < .0001). For 53 nodules ≥10 mm, 15 (28.3%) benign nodules would not have met size criteria for FNA had points for margins not been applied when only showing macrolobulation, whereas all 10 malignant nodules would still have been sampled. CONCLUSION: Adding two points to the ACR TI-RADS score for lobulated thyroid nodules should only apply when microlobulations are present.

Varicose Veins of the Lower Extremity: Doppler US Evaluation Protocols, Patterns, and Pitfalls.

Venous insufficiency is a cause of substantial morbidity and medical expenditures. Diagnostic US evaluation of venous insufficiency requires a thorough understanding of the venous anatomy, including the deep, superficial, and perforator veins. The highly variable venous anatomy requires that operators use sound judgment to expand on protocol images and thus avoid missing important sources of reflux. The US examination requires specific patient positioning and use of provocative maneuvers. A basic understanding of the pathophysiology of venous insufficiency and the various treatment methods helps to identify key observations so that ineffective treatment methods are not pursued. The examination reports should have greater detail than those for the more common lower extremity deep venous thrombosis evaluation, requiring numeric and narrative descriptions of deep and superficial venous patency, reflux, diameter, and pathways. Potential pitfalls include not recognizing or detecting deep venous reflux, misidentifying common femoral vein reflux as deep venous reflux when the reflux is isolated or related to saphenofemoral insufficiency, not recognizing anterior accessory great saphenous vein (AAGSV) involvement in saphenofemoral insufficiency, not recognizing or reporting great saphenous vein or AAGSV superficialization, not suspecting central venous obstruction, and not realizing when provocative maneuvers were ineffective. With knowledge of the lower extremity venous anatomy, venous insufficiency pathophysiology, basic treatment strategies, protocol best practices, patterns of observation, and diagnostic pitfalls, those who interpret venous insufficiency US studies can perform examinations and deliver reports that help patients receive appropriate treatment. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.

Non-Vascular Considerations When Interpreting Extremity Arterial and Venous Examinations.

Peripheral arterial and venous examinations are performed regularly in vascular labs and interpreted by physicians of different specialities. Many vascular examinations have nonvascular pathology that is either inadvertently imaged by the sonographer or imaged with intent as it relates to patient's symptoms. It is prudent for every reader of vascular studies to be acquainted with the sonographic appearance of these non-vascular lesions to enable appropriate and optimal interpretation that has a direct bearing on patient's clinical care. Our review includes a discussion of the nonvascular pathologies like lymph nodes, soft tissue edema, soft tissue fluid collections, musculotendinous injuries, soft tissue masses, and joint and bursal pathologies that may be encountered during interpretation of vascular exams. The pictorial essay includes a discussion of their sonographic appearances and pitfalls in interpretation. Multiple illustrative examples and sonographic images of the non-vascular pathologies found during interpretation of vascular studies have been utilized to highlight their appearances.

Medical Education Research Design.

As with clinical care, radiology education benefits when stakeholders collaborate to gather and analyze data to answer questions and solve issues. Just as importantly, radiology educators benefit academically and professionally when they demonstrate a portfolio of published scholarship to promotion committees and department leaders. The principles and techniques used in the design of medical education research are not well understood by many radiology educators because educational scholarship methodologies have received little attention in our literature. Lack of familiarity and inexperience with research methodologies, particularly qualitative research, are barriers that education researchers can address with knowledge acquisition and practice. This overview surveys the landscape and offers suggested medical education research resources to help researchers explore topics to increase understanding of quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, survey, and educational design methodologies.

Performance of an algorithm for diagnosing acute cholecystitis using clinical and sonographic parameters.

PURPOSE: Identify an algorithm using clinical and ultrasound (US) parameters with high diagnostic performance for acute cholecystitis. METHODS: Consecutive emergency department (ED) patients from 4/1/2019 to 12/31/2019 were retrospectively reviewed to record non-US parameters and make US observations. Outcomes were categorized as either: (1) acute cholecystitis; or (2) negative acute cholecystitis. Pivot tables identified parameter combinations either not found with acute cholecystitis or with predictive value for acute cholecystitis to establish the algorithm. US Division radiologists finalized an US report prior to ED disposition without use of the algorithm. Radiologist impression and algorithm prediction for acute cholecystitis were categorized as either (1) acute cholecystitis; (2) negative acute cholecystitis; or (3) inconclusive. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-six studies on 357 patients (mean age, 51 yrs ± 20 yrs; 215 women) met the inclusion criteria. 10.9% (40/366) of US studies had acute cholecystitis, 12.6% (46/366) had pathologically identified chronic cholecystitis without acute cholecystitis, and 76.5% (280/366) were negative acute cholecystitis. Algorithm compared to radiologist diagnostic performance was as follows: (1) sensitivity: 90.0% vs. 55.0%, p < 0.001; (2) augmented sensitivity (defined as when inconclusive categorization is considered consistent with acute cholecystitis): 100% vs. 85.0%, p < 0.001; (3) specificity: 93.6% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.50; (4) diagnostic rate (opposite of inconclusive rate): 96.4% vs. 93.2%, p = 0.04; (5) adverse outcome rate: 0.0% vs. 1.6%, p undefined. CONCLUSION: For acute cholecystitis, an algorithm using non-binary ultrasound and clinical assessments had higher sensitivity, higher diagnostic rate, and fewer adverse outcomes, than subspecialty radiologist impressions.

The impact of blood pressure on the risk of major bleeding complication after renal transplant biopsy.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of elevated blood pressure on the rate of major hemorrhagic complication after renal transplant biopsy. METHODS: Pre-procedural systolic (SBP), diastolic (SBP), and mean arterial (MAP) blood pressure for consecutive patients undergoing US-guided renal transplant biopsies from 08/01/2015 to 7/31/2017 were retrospectively recorded. Patients who had a major bleeding complication were identified. The risk of complication as a function of SBP, DBP, and MAP was statistically analyzed, with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 1689 biopsies, there were 10 bleeding complications (10/1689, 0.59%). There was no statistically significant difference between biopsies with complication compared to those without complication based on SBP (p = 0.351), DBP (p = 0.088), or MAP (p = 0.132). Using risk dichotomization criteria, the odds ratio for hemorrhagic complication when the patient had SBP ≥ 180 mmHg and DBP ≥ 95 mmHg was 75.63 (95% CI 6.87-516.8, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The rate of hemorrhagic complication from renal transplant biopsy is low, and there is no statistically significant threshold for increased biopsy risk based on SBP, DBP, or MAP alone. The risk of complication was significantly higher only when both the SBP is ≥ 180 mmHg and DBP is ≥ 95 mmHg.

USMLE Step 3 Scores Have Value in Predicting ABR Core Examination Outcome and Performance: A Multi-institutional Study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We analyzed multi-institutional data to determine if Step 3 performance tiers can identify radiology residents with increased risk of Core examination failure and submean performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected Step 3 scores (USMLE Step 3 or COMLEX Level 3) and American Board of Radiology (ABR) Core examination outcomes and scores for anonymized residents from 13 different Diagnostic Radiology residency programs taking the ABR Core examination between 2013 and 2019. Step 3 scores were converted to percentiles based on Z-score, with Core outcome and performance analyzed for Step 3 groups based on 50th percentile and based on quintiles. Core outcome was scored as fail when conditionally passed or failed. Core performance was measured by the percent of residents with scores below the mean. Differences between Step 3 groups for Core outcome and Core performance were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Data were available for 342 residents. The Core examination failure rate for 121 residents with Step 3 scores <50th percentile was 19.8% (fail relative risk = 2.26), significantly higher than the 2.7% failure rate for the 221 other residents. Of 42 residents with Step 3 scores in the lowest quintile, the Core failure rate increased to 31.0% (fail relative risk = 3.52). Core performance improved with higher Step 3 quintiles. CONCLUSION: Step 3 licensing scores have value in predicting radiology resident performance on the ABR Core examination, enabling residency programs to target higher risk residents for early assessment and intervention.

Impact of Uterine Sliding Sign in Routine United States Ultrasound Practice.

OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the uterine sliding sign in predicting deeply infiltrating endometriosis in the setting of non-physician sonographers performing but not interpreting the maneuver. The impact of uterine sliding sign has not been previously demonstrated in this practice setting. METHODS: Physicians' remote interpretations of transvaginal ultrasound examinations in 2016, before uterine sliding sign, were compared to examinations in 2019 after addition of uterine sliding sign to determine the diagnostic rates. Surgical and histopathological results were reviewed to determine sensitivity and specificity of the respective exam techniques. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five transvaginal ultrasounds were performed in 2016 and 390 sliding sign ultrasounds in 2019. The number of deeply infiltrating endometriosis cases identified increased significantly from 2% to 6% during the study period (chi-square, Fisher's exact test p = .012). The sensitivity and specificity of routine pelvic sonography for detecting deeply infiltrating endometriosis improved from 36%/94% to 68%/98%. CONCLUSIONS: Uterine sliding sign videos should be included in the standard sonographic protocol for patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain, endometriosis history, or sonographic evidence of endometriosis in the setting of physicians interpreting sonographic images obtained by non-physicians.

Added Benefit and Risk of an Additional Biopsy or Targeting With Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Patients With Renal Transplants.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether renal transplant diagnoses substantially change when 2 biopsy sites are chosen and whether contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has value for targeting the second site. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 40 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided renal transplant biopsy within 2 years of transplant: 20, surveillance; and 20, for cause. A CEUS examination was performed to identify cortical regions with subjectively altered flow. One biopsy was performed at the operator-preferred (primary) site regardless of CEUS findings. Another biopsy was done at a second location, either targeted to an area in which CEUS perfusion findings differed from the primary site (targeted) or at a random location (secondary) if no other area differed. Specimens were randomly labeled A or B; pathologists were blinded to the CEUS result and biopsy location. Location-specific CEUS assessments were recorded. Pathologic results were compared, including acute and chronic Banff scores and any new findings from the targeted or secondary biopsy. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled between January 2016 and December 2018. No location-specific pathologic differences correlated with differences in CEUS assessments. The second biopsy provided additional information that changed management in 4 of 40 patients (10.0% [95% confidence interval, 2.8%-23.7%]). Major bleeding complications occurred in 3 of 40 (7.5%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound targeting was not useful. Major bleeding complications were higher than expected, possibly due to the additional biopsy away from the operator-preferred location. Obtaining a second renal transplant biopsy from a substantially different area than the initial operator-preferred location provided additional clinically useful information in 10% of patients.