Imaging features of intra-abdominal and intra-pelvic causes of hirsutism.

Hirsutism is a relatively common disorder which affects approximately 5% to 15% of women. It is defined by excessive growth of terminal hair in women, which primarily affects areas dependent on androgens, such as the face, abdomen, buttocks, and thighs. Hirsutism can be caused by a variety of etiologies, which are most often not lifethreatening. However, in some cases, hirsutism can be an indicator of more serious underlying pathology, such as a neoplasm, which may require further elucidation with imaging. Within the abdomen and pelvis, adrenal and ovarian pathologies are the primary consideration. The goal of this manuscript is to review the etiologies and imaging features of various intra-abdominal and intra-pelvic causes of hirsutism.

IgG4 aortitis of the ascending thoracic aorta: A case report and literature review.

IgG4 aortitis is a recently recognized entity that can have clinical and imaging features that mimic acute aortic syndrome. Therefore, it is imperative for radiologists to be aware of how to potentially differentiate the two. Although this entity has been previously described via case reports and meta-analysis in the context of inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysm, very few cases of ascending aortic involvement have been reported. In this case report, we present a case of a 60-year-old female transferred from another facility for an initial diagnosis of intramural hematoma of the ascending aorta and later found to have IgG4 aortitis post aortic root repair. This is a histologically confirmed case of multi-segmented IgG4 aortitis with rare involvement of both ascending and infra-renal aorta. We will briefly discuss the pathophysiology of IgG4 aortitis, along with review of literature.

Small lymphocytic lymphoma of the prostate mimicking a PIRADS 5 lesion that resolved after systemic treatment.

Prostatic PIRADS 4 and 5 lesions on multiparametric MRI typically represent adenocarcinoma with small lymphocytic lymphoma being a rare pathological finding. We report a case of small lymphocytic lymphoma masquerading as PIRADS 4 and 5 lesions with associated lymphadenopathy in a 69-year-old male on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer that was subsequently confirmed on targeted and systematic prostate biopsy. Following treatment of lymphoma with ibrutinib, there was complete resolution of the PIRADS lesions on follow-up mpMRI.

Clinical applications of pelvic floor imaging: opinion statement endorsed by the society of abdominal radiology (SAR), American Urological Association (AUA), and American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS).

Pelvic floor dysfunction is prevalent, with multifactorial causes and variable clinical presentations. Accurate diagnosis and assessment of the involved structures commonly requires a multidisciplinary approach. Imaging is often complementary to clinical assessment, and the most commonly used modalities for pelvic floor imaging include fluoroscopic defecography, magnetic resonance defecography, and pelvic floor ultrasound. This collaboration opinion paper was developed by representatives from multiple specialties involved in care of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction (radiologists, urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons). Here, we discuss the utility of imaging techniques in various clinical scenarios, highlighting the perspectives of referring physicians. The final draft was endorsed by the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR), American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), and the American Urological Association (AUA).

Variability in utilization and techniques of pelvic floor imaging: findings of the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel.

Pelvic floor disorders are common and can negatively impact quality of life. Imaging of patients with pelvic floor disorders has been extremely heterogeneous between institutions due in part to variations in clinical expectations, technical considerations, and radiologist experience. In order to assess variations in utilization and technique of pelvic floor imaging across practices, the society of abdominal radiology (SAR) disease-focused panel on pelvic floor dysfunction developed and administered an online survey to radiologists including the SAR membership. Results of the survey were compared with published recommendations for pelvic floor imaging to identify areas in need of further standardization. MRI was the most commonly reported imaging technique for pelvic floor imaging followed by fluoroscopic defecography. Ultrasound was only used by a small minority of responding radiologists. The survey responses demonstrated variability in imaging utilization, patient referral patterns, imaging protocols, patient education, and interpretation and reporting of pelvic floor imaging examinations. This survey highlighted inconsistencies in technique between institutions as well as potential gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to standardize evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction.

MR defecography technique: recommendations of the society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel on pelvic floor imaging.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for magnetic resonance (MR) defecography technique based on consensus of expert radiologists on the disease-focused panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR). METHODS: An extensive questionnaire was sent to a group of 20 experts from the disease-focused panel of the SAR. The questionnaire encompassed details of technique and MRI protocol used for evaluating pelvic floor disorders. 75% agreement on questionnaire responses was defined as consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 70% of the items and provided the basis of these recommendations for MR defecography technique. There was unanimous agreement that patients should receive coaching and explanation of commands used during MR defecography, the rectum should be distended with contrast agent, and that sagittal T2-weighted images should include the entire pelvis within the field of view. The panel also agreed unanimously that IV contrast should not be used for MR defecography. Additional areas of consensus ranged in agreement from 75 to 92%. CONCLUSION: We provide a set of consensus recommendations for MR defecography technique based on a survey of expert radiologists in the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel. These recommendations can be used to develop a standardized imaging protocol.

MR defecography review.

Pelvic floor dysfunction is a relatively common but often complex condition, presenting with a variety of clinical symptoms, especially when it involves multiple compartments. Clinical exam alone is often inadequate and requires a complementary imaging study. Magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) is an excellent noninvasive diagnostic study with its multiplanar capability, lack of ionizing radiation and excellent soft tissue resolution. It can identify both anatomic and functional abnormalities in the pelvic floor and specifically excels in its ability to simultaneously detect multicompartmental pathology and help with vital pre-operative assessment. This manuscript reviews the relevant anatomical landmarks, describes the optimal technique, highlights an approach to the interpretation of MRD, and provides an overview of the various pelvic floor disorders in the different anatomical compartments.

Multimodality imaging of pelvic floor anatomy.

The pelvic floor is composed of a network of muscles, ligaments, and fasciae, which provide active and passive support for the pelvic organs. Impairment of these pelvic floor elements can result in a variety of functional abnormalities and single or multicompartment organ prolapse. Knowledge of normal pelvic floor anatomy can aid the radiologist in understanding the complex nature of pelvic floor dysfunction and is important for comprehensive image interpretation. This article provides an overview of normal anatomy of the pelvic floor as seen on magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and fluoroscopic studies performed in the evaluation of pelvic floor function.

Imaging and Management of Pancreatic Cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive disease with rising incidence and high mortality despite advances in imaging and therapeutic options. Surgical resection is currently the only curative treatment, with expanding roles for adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Accurate detection, staging, and post-treatment monitoring of pancreatic cancer are critical to improving survival and imaging plays a central role in the multidisciplinary approach to this disease. This article will provide a broad overview of the imaging and management of pancreatic cancer with a focus on diagnosis and staging, operative and nonoperative treatments, and post-therapeutic appearances after surgery and chemoradiation therapy.

CT Colonography: Improving Interpretive Skill by Avoiding Pitfalls.

An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on December 20, 2019.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018: Impact on Categorization and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging.

The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance in categorization and radiologic T staging using Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) version 2017 (v2017), version 2018 (v2018), and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) criteria. All magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography reports using a standardized LI-RADS macro between April 2015 and March 2018 were identified retrospectively. The major features (size, arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout, enhancing capsule, or threshold growth) were extracted from the report for each LR-3, LR-4, and LR-5 observation. Each observation was assigned a new category based on LI-RADS v2017, v2018, and OPTN criteria. Radiologic T stage was calculated based on the size and number of LR-5 or OPTN class 5 observations. Categories and T stages assigned by each system were compared descriptively. There were 398 patients (66.6% male; mean age, 63.4 years) with 641 observations (median size, 14 mm) who were included. A total of 73/182 (40.1%) observations categorized LR-4 by LI-RADS v2017 were up-categorized to LR-5 by LI-RADS v2018 due to changes in the LR-5 criteria, and 4/196 (2.0%) observations categorized as LR-5 by LI-RADS v2017 were down-categorized to LR-4 by LI-RADS v2018 due to changes in the threshold growth definition. The T stage was higher by LI-RADS v2018 than LI-RADS v2017 in 49/398 (12.3%) patients. Compared with the OPTN stage, 12/398 (3.0%) patients were upstaged by LI-RADS v2017 and 60/398 (15.1%) by LI-RADS v2018. Of 101 patients, 5 (5.0%) patients with T2 stage based on LI-RADS v2017 and 10/102 (9.8%) patients with T2 stage based on LI-RADS v2018 did not meet the T2 criteria based on the OPTN criteria. Of the 98 patients with a T2 stage based on OPTN criteria, 2 (2.0%) had a T stage ≥3 based on LI-RADS v2017 and 6 (6.1%) had a T stage ≥3 based on LI-RADS v2018.

Comparison of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes in a screening and diagnostic CT colonography population.

PURPOSE: To compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations. METHODS: 388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.

Practical guide to dynamic pelvic floor MRI.

Pelvic floor dysfunction encompasses a spectrum of functional disorders that result from impairment of the ligaments, fasciae, and muscles supporting the pelvic organs. It is a prevalent disorder that carries a lifetime risk over 10% for undergoing a surgical repair. Pelvic floor weakness presents as a wide range of symptoms, including pain, pelvic pressure or bulging, urinary and fecal incontinence, constipation, and sexual dysfunction. A correct diagnosis by clinical examination alone can be challenging, particularly in cases involving multiple compartments. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows noninvasive, radiation-free, high soft-tissue resolution evaluation of all three pelvic compartments, and has proved a reliable technique for accurate diagnosis of pelvic floor dysfunction. MR defecography with steady-state sequences allows detailed anatomic and functional evaluation of the pelvic floor. This article provides an overview of normal anatomy and function of the pelvic floor and discusses a practical approach to the evaluation of imaging findings of pelvic floor relaxation, pelvic organ prolapse, fecal incontinence, and obstructed defecation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1155-1170.

LI-RADS® ancillary features on CT and MRI.

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) uses an algorithm to assign categories that reflect the probability of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), non-HCC malignancy, or benignity. Unlike other imaging algorithms, LI-RADS utilizes ancillary features (AFs) to refine the final category. AFs in LI-RADS v2017 are divided into those favoring malignancy in general, those favoring HCC specifically, and those favoring benignity. Additionally, LI-RADS v2017 provides new rules regarding application of AFs. The purpose of this review is to discuss ancillary features included in LI-RADS v2017, the rationale for their use, potential pitfalls encountered in their interpretation, and tips on their application.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: Discordance Between Computed Tomography and Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Major Features.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare agreement between computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of the major Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) features used in assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE), portal venous phase washout (WO), capsule appearance (capsule), and largest diameter (diameter). METHODS: Patients with liver protocol CT and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI within 1 month of each other and at least 1 discrete untreated liver lesion were included. Two readers independently reviewed hepatic arterial phase and portal venous phase of each lesion on both CT and MRI, presented at random. The APHE, WO, capsule, and diameter were assessed for each lesion on CT and MRI. The LI-RADS category was assigned based on the recorded major features. Interobserver agreements between the readers for both imaging modalities and for each of the major features were assessed using κ statistics. Agreement between CT and MRI for each reader and for each feature was assessed using κ statistics. Agreement was interpreted based on κ as follows: 0.20 or less, slight agreement; 0.21 to 0.40, fair agreement; 0.41 to 0.60, moderate agreement; 0.61 to 0.80, substantial agreement; and 0.81 to 1.00, almost perfect agreement. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess concordance of diameter measurements. RESULTS: There were 42 patients (mean age, 62.2 ± 7.0 years; 33 men [78.6%]) with 50 lesions. On CT, the interobserver agreement between the readers was almost perfect for APHE (κ = 0.85), WO (κ = 0.83), and capsule (κ = 0.86). On MRI, the interobserver agreement between the readers was almost perfect for APHE (κ = 0.86) and WO (κ = 0.83) and moderate for capsule (κ = 0.59). Intraclass correlation coefficient for diameter measurement was 0.99 for CT and 0.98 for MRI. For reader 1, the agreement between CT and MRI was fair for APHE (κ = 0.39) and capsule (κ = 0.26) and moderate for WO (κ = 0.49). For reader 2, the agreement between CT and MRI was moderate for APHE (κ = 0.43) and capsule (κ = 0.43) and fair (κ = 0.38) for WO. Agreement between readers for final LI-RADS category was substantial for CT (κ = 0.79) and moderate for MRI (κ = 0.60). Agreement for final LI-RADS categories between MRI and CT was fair for both reader 1 (κ = 0.33) and reader 2 (κ = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement for the major LI-RADS features varies from moderate to almost perfect, for both CT and MRI. However, the agreement between CT and MRI for each of the major LI-RADS features is poor, ranging from fair to moderate. This poor agreement contributes to substantial differences between final LI-RADS category assigned on CT versus MRI.

Impact of a Structured Report Template on the Quality of CT and MRI Reports for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) structured template on quality of reports for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A departmental structured LI-RADS template was adopted in April 2015. CT and MRI reports from September 2014 to February 2016 with probable or definite HCC were reviewed. Reporting of the following was recorded for each lesion and compared between template and free-text reports: (1) LI-RADS category, (2) Couinaud segment, and (3) unequivocal description of presence or absence of major LI-RADS HCC features: arterial phase hyperenhancement, "washout," diameter, threshold growth, and "capsule." RESULTS: There were 306 definite or probable HCCs, 125 (40.8%) reported with free text and 181 (59.2%) with the template. LI-RADS category was reported in 23 of 125 (18.4%) HCCs with free text and in 178 of 181 (98.3%) HCCs with the template (P < .001). Couinaud segment was reported in 102 of 125 (81.6%) HCCs with free text and in 181 of 181 (100%) HCCs with the template (P < .001). Diameter was reported in 118 of 125 (94.4%) HCCs with free text and in 181 of 181 (100%) HCCs with the template (P = .001). Threshold growth was reported in 36 of 125 (28.8%) HCCs with free text and in 169 of 181 (93.4%) HCCs with the template (P < .001). Arterial phase hyperenhancement was reported in 101 of 125 (80.8%) HCCs with free text and in 177 of 181 (97.8%) HCCs with the template (P < .001). Washout was reported in 93 of 125 (74.4%) HCCs with free text and in 178 of 181 (98.3%) HCCs with the template (P < .001). Capsule was reported in 24 of 125 (19.2%) HCCs with free text and in 176 of 181 (97.2%) HCCs with the template (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of structured LI-RADS template resulted in more comprehensive and consistent reporting of major HCC features and LI-RADS category compared with free-text reporting.

Effect of threshold growth as a major feature on LI-RADS categorization.

PURPOSE: Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) uses major features (arterial phase hyperenhancement [APHE], "washout" [WO], "capsule," diameter, threshold growth [TG]) to codify probability of hepatocellular carcinoma for each observation. This study assessed the effect of removing TG as a major feature on LI-RADS categorization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved study, all MR and CT clinical reports containing a standardized LI-RADS v2014 template between 4/15-1/17 were retrospectively reviewed for each LR-3, LR-4, and LR-5 reported observation. Two LI-RADS categories were then assigned: one using all LI-RADS major features and one after removing TG as a major feature. The two categories were compared descriptively. RESULTS: The study included 265 patients (172 [65%] male, mean age 63 [±10] years) with 489 observations (median diameter 14 mm, IQR 10-20 mm), of which 345 (71%) had APHE, 307 (63%) had WO, 86 (18%) had "capsule," and 72 (15%) had TG. Of 86 observations with TG, 47 (65%) were new observations ≥10 mm, 14 (19%) had diameter increase ≥50% in ≤6 months, and 11 (15%) had diameter increase ≥100% in >6 months. Using all major features, 214/489 (44%) observations were LR-3, 129/489 (26%) were LR-4, and 146/489 (30%) were LR-5. After removing TG, 237/489 (48%) were LR-3, 119/489 (24%) were LR-4, and 133 (27%) were LR-5. Removing TG caused a category downgrade for 35/489 (7%, 95% CI 5-10) observations, including 13/146 (9%, 95% CI 3-14) LR-5 observations. CONCLUSION: 9% of LR-5 observations would be downgraded without TG.