Recommendations for the Management of Incidental Musculoskeletal Findings on MRI and CT.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Incidental Findings Working Group consists of both academic subspeciality and general radiologists tasked with either adapting American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines to meet the needs of Canadian radiologists or authoring new guidelines where appropriate. In this case, entirely new guidelines to deal with incidental musculoskeletal findings that may be encountered on thoracoabdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging were drafted, focussing on which findings should prompt recommendations for further workup. These recommendations discuss how to deal with incidental marrow changes, focal bone lesions, abnormalities of the pubic symphysis and sacroiliac joints, fatty soft tissue masses, manifestations of renal osteodystrophy and finally discuss opportunistic osteoporosis evaluation.

Recommendations for the Management of Incidental Pancreatic Findings in Adults by the Canadian Association of Radiologists Incidental Findings Working Group.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists Incidental Findings Working Group consists of both academic subspecialty and general radiologists and is tasked with adapting and expanding upon the American College of Radiology incidental findings white papers to more closely apply to Canadian practice patterns, particularly more comprehensively dealing with the role of ultrasound and pursuing more cost-effective approaches to the workup of incidental findings without compromising patient care. Presented here are the 2021 Canadian guidelines for the management of pancreatic incidental findings. Topics covered include anatomic variants, fatty atrophy, pancreatic calcifications, ductal ectasia, and management of incidental pancreatic cysts.

Recommendations for the Management of Incidental Hepatobiliary Findings in Adults: Endorsement and Adaptation of the 2017 and 2013 ACR Incidental Findings Committee White Papers by the Canadian Association of Radiologists Incidental Findings Working Group.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists Incidental Findings Working Group consists of both academic subspecialty and general radiologists and is tasked with adapting and expanding upon the American College of Radiology incidental findings white papers to more closely apply to Canadian practice patterns, particularly more comprehensively dealing with the role of ultrasound and pursuing more cost-effective approaches to the workup of incidental findings without compromising patient care. Presented here are the 2020 Canadian guidelines for the management of hepatobiliary incidental findings. Topics covered include initial assessment of hepatic steatosis and cirrhosis, the workup of incidental liver masses identified on ultrasound and computed tomography (with algorithms presented), incidental gallbladder findings (wall thickening, calcification, and polyps), and management of incidental biliary dilatation.

Hepatic Microwave Ablation Zone Size: Correlation with Total Energy, Net Energy, and Manufacturer-Provided Chart Predictions.

PURPOSE: To determine whether total energy (TE) reaching the microwave (MW) applicator or net energy (NE) exiting the applicator (after correcting for reflectivity) correlates better with hepatic MW ablation zone dimensions than manufacturer-provided chart predictions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-applicator, nonoverlapping ablations of 93 liver tumors (0.7-5.9 cm) were performed in 52 adult patients. TE and NE were recorded for each ablation. Long axis diameter (LAD), short axis diameter (SAD), and volume (V) of each ablation zone were measured on magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography after the procedure and retrospectively compared with TE; NE; and manufacturer-provided chart predictions of LAD, SAD, and V using correlation and regression analyses. RESULTS: For treated tumors, mean (± SD) TE and NE were 49.8 kJ (± 22.7) and 36.4 kJ (± 19.4). Mean LAD, SAD, and V were 5.8 cm (± 1.3), 3.7 cm (± 0.8), and 44.1 cm(3) (± 25.4). Correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) with LAD, SAD, and V were 0.46 (0.28, 0.61), 0.52 (0.36, 0.66), and 0.52 (0.36, 0.66) for TE; 0.42 (0.24, 0.58), 0.55 (0.39, 0.68), and 0.53 (0.36, 0.66) for NE; and 0.51 (0.34, 0.65), 0.63 (0.49, 0.74), and 0.60 (0.45, 0.73) for chart predictions. Using regression analysis and controlling for TE, SAD was 0.34 cm larger in patients with cirrhosis than in patients without cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: Correcting for reflectivity did not substantially improve correlation of energy values with MW ablation zone size parameters and did not outperform manufacturer-provided chart predictions. Correlations were moderate and variable using all methods. The results suggest a disproportionate influence of tissue factors on MW ablation results.