Is the excretory phase necessary to identify upper tract urothelial neoplasms at CT urography? A 10-year population-based study.

PURPOSE: To assess the proportion of upper tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUC) that are evident without the excretory phase at CT urography (CTU), and the proportion of potentially avoidable radiation. METHODS: UTUCs diagnosed between January 2008-December 2017 were retrospectively identified from a population-based cancer registry. For each patient, US, non-urographic CT, and MRI exams were assessed for a primary mass and secondary imaging findings (hydronephrosis, urinary tract thickening, luminal distention, fat stranding, and lymphadenopathy/metastatic disease). CTUs were assessed for primary and secondary findings, and whether the tumor was evident as a filling defect on excretory phase. The dose-length product (DLP) of potentially avoidable excretory phases was calculated as a fraction of total DLP. RESULTS: 288 patients (mean age, 72±11 years, 165 males) and 545 imaging examinations were included. Of 192 patients imaged with 370 non-urographic CTs, a primary mass was evident in 154 (80.2%), secondary findings were evident in 172 (89.6%), and primary or secondary findings were evident in 179 (93.2%). Of 175 CTUs, primary and secondary findings were evident in 157 (89.7%) and 166 (94.9%) examinations, respectively, and primary or secondary findings were evident in 170/175 (97.1%). 131/175 (74.9%) UTUCs were evident as a filling defect, including the 5/175 (2.9%) UTUCs without primary or secondary findings. Of 144 CTUs with available DLP data, the proportion of potentially avoidable radiation was 103.7/235.8 (44.0%) Gy⋅cm. CONCLUSION: In our population, almost all UTUCs were evident via primary or secondary imaging findings without requiring the excretory phase. These results support streamlining protocols and pathways.

Resection of colorectal carcinoma liver metastases: A population-based study in outcomes and factors associated with recurrent disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the hepatic disease-free survival (HDFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) in our population, and evaluate what factors are associated with these outcomes. METHODS: Patients with resected non-mucinous CRCLM between January 2013-February 2020 were retrospectively identified. Dates of diagnosis, surgery, and, if applicable, death were recorded. HDFS and OS were calculated using a census date of 24 September 2022. Separate Cox multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate for association between HDFS and OS and the following factors: pre-operative imaging interval (<4 weeks vs. ≥4 weeks); pre-operative imaging modality (CT only vs. MRI+CT); extrahepatic disease at time of hepatectomy (yes vs. no); tumor burden score (TBS, where TBS2 = (largest axial dimension of CRCLM)2 + (number of CRCLM)2); pT and pN; and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: 137 subjects (mean age, 61 ± 11 years, 86 males) were included. Associations with recurrent hepatic disease were found with chemotherapy (HR 2.11[95 % CI = 1.13-3.92]), TBS (HR 1.30[95 % CI = 1.17-1.45]), MRI+CT (HR 2.12[95 % CI = 1.29-3.48]), and extrahepatic disease at hepatectomy (HR 2.16[95 % CI = 1.08-4.35]). For mortality, associations were found with TBS (HR 1.22[95 % CI = 1.09-1.37]), pT (HR 1.45[95 % CI = 1.05-2.00]), and extrahepatic disease at hepatectomy (HR 2.10[95 % CI = 1.31-3.36]). CONCLUSION: In our population, non-imaging related factors TBS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pT and presence of extrahepatic disease at time of hepatectomy were associated with HDFS and/or OS. The preoperative imaging interval and use of preoperative MRI were not associated with improved patient outcomes.

LI-RADS CT and MRI Ancillary Feature Association with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Malignancy: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Background The independent contribution of each Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) CT or MRI ancillary feature (AF) has not been established. Purpose To evaluate the association of LI-RADS AFs with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and malignancy while adjusting for LI-RADS major features through an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Materials and Methods Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched from January 2014 to January 2022 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI for HCC using LI-RADS version 2014, 2017, or 2018. Using a one-step approach, IPD across studies were pooled. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were derived from multivariable logistic regression models of each AF combined with major features except threshold growth (excluded because of infrequent reporting). Liver observation clustering was addressed at the study and participant levels through random intercepts. Risk of bias was assessed using a composite reference standard and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results Twenty studies comprising 3091 observations (2456 adult participants; mean age, 59 years ± 11 [SD]; 1849 [75.3%] men) were included. In total, 89% (eight of nine) of AFs favoring malignancy were associated with malignancy and/or HCC, 80% (four of five) of AFs favoring HCC were associated with HCC, and 57% (four of seven) of AFs favoring benignity were negatively associated with HCC and/or malignancy. Nonenhancing capsule (OR = 3.50 [95% CI: 1.53, 8.01]) had the strongest association with HCC. Diffusion restriction (OR = 14.45 [95% CI: 9.82, 21.27]) and mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity (OR = 10.18 [95% CI: 7.17, 14.44]) had the strongest association with malignancy. The strongest negative associations with HCC were parallels blood pool enhancement (OR = 0.07 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.49]) and marked T2 hyperintensity (OR = 0.18 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.45]). Seventeen studies (85%) had a high risk of bias. Conclusion Most LI-RADS AFs were independently associated with HCC, malignancy, or benignity as intended when adjusting for major features. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Crivellaro in this issue.

Reinterpretation of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Imaging Exams: Assessment of Clinical Impact, Peer Learning, and Physician Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact on clinical management, potential for peer learning, and referring physician satisfaction with subspecialist reinterpretations of hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) imaging examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HPB CTs and MRIs from outside hospitals were reinterpreted by two subspecialty radiologists between March 2021 and August 2022. Reinterpretation reports were mailed to radiologists that issued primary reports. The electronic record was reviewed to assess for changes in clinical management based on the reinterpretations (yes/no/unavailable). To assess the potential for peer learning, a survey using a 5-point Likert scale was sent to radiologists who issued primary reports. A separate survey was sent to referring physicians to assess satisfaction with reinterpretations. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty imaging examinations (122 CT, 128 MRI) were reinterpreted at the request of 19 referring physicians. Ninety-six radiologists issued primary reports. RADPEER scores 1-3 were assigned to 131/250 (52%), 86/250 (34%), and 33/250 (13%) examinations, respectively. Of 213 reinterpretations with adequate records for assessment, 75/213 (35%) were associated with a change in management; of these, 71/75 (95%) were classified as RADPEER 2 or 3. Most radiologists agreed or strongly agreed with the following: prefer to receive reinterpretations (34/36, 94%); reinterpretations changed practice of reporting HPB imaging examinations (23/36, 64%); and reinterpretations offer opportunities for peer learning (34/36, 94%). Referring physicians agreed or strongly agreed (7/7, 100%) that reinterpretations are valuable and often change or clarify management of patients with complex HPB disease, and offer an opportunity for peer learning. CONCLUSION: Radiologists and referring physicians strongly agree that HPB imaging reinterpretations help support peer learning and patient management, respectively.

Comparative Performance of 2018 LI-RADS versus Modified LIRADS (mLI-RADS): An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018) is used for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A recently proposed modification (known as mLI-RADS) demonstrated improved sensitivity while maintaining specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of LI-RADS category 5 (definite HCC) for HCC. However, mLI-RADS requires multicenter validation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of v2018 and mLI-RADS for liver lesions in a large, heterogeneous, multi-national cohort of patients at risk for HCC. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) [Study Protocol: https://osf.io/duys4]. POPULATION: 2223 observations from 1817 patients (includes all LI-RADS categories; females = 448, males = 1361, not reported = 8) at elevated risk for developing HCC (based on LI-RADS population criteria) from 12 retrospective studies. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T and 3T; complete liver MRI with gadoxetate disodium, including axial T2w images and dynamic axial fat-suppressed T1w images precontrast and in the arterial, portal venous, transitional, and hepatobiliary phases. Diffusion-weighted imaging was used when available. ASSESSMENT: Liver observations were categorized using v2018 and mLI-RADS. The diagnostic performance of each system's category 5 (LR-5 and mLR-5) for HCC were compared. STATISTICAL TESTS: The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2 was applied to determine risk of bias and applicability. Diagnostic performances were assessed using the likelihood ratio test for sensitivity and specificity and the Wald test for PPV. The significance level was P < 0.05. RESULTS: 17% (2/12) of the studies were considered low risk of bias (244 liver observations; 164 patients). When compared to v2018, mLR-5 demonstrated higher sensitivity (61.3% vs. 46.5%, P < 0.001), similar PPV (85.3% vs. 86.3%, P = 0.89), and similar specificity (85.8% vs. 90.8%, P = 0.16) for HCC. DATA CONCLUSION: This study confirms mLR-5 has higher sensitivity than LR-5 for HCC identification, while maintaining similar PPV and specificity, validating the mLI-RADS proposal in a heterogeneous, international cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of LR-5 in LI-RADS Version 2018 versus Revised LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis.

Background A simplification of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 (v2018), revised LI-RADS (rLI-RADS), has been proposed for imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Single-site data suggest that rLI-RADS category 5 (rLR-5) improves sensitivity while maintaining positive predictive value (PPV) of the LI-RADS v2018 category 5 (LR-5), which indicates definite HCC. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018 and rLI-RADS in a multicenter data set of patients at risk for HCC by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis. Materials and Methods Multiple databases were searched for studies published from January 2014 to January 2022 that evaluated the diagnostic performance of any version of LI-RADS at CT or MRI for diagnosing HCC. An individual patient data meta-analysis method was applied to observations from the identified studies. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 was applied to determine study risk of bias. Observations were categorized according to major features and either LI-RADS v2018 or rLI-RADS assignments. Diagnostic accuracies of category 5 for each system were calculated using generalized linear mixed models and compared using the likelihood ratio test for sensitivity and the Wald test for PPV. Results Twenty-four studies, including 3840 patients and 4727 observations, were analyzed. The median observation size was 19 mm (IQR, 11-30 mm). rLR-5 showed higher sensitivity compared with LR-5 (70.6% [95% CI: 60.7, 78.9] vs 61.3% [95% CI: 45.9, 74.7]; P < .001), with similar PPV (90.7% vs 92.3%; P = .55). In studies with low risk of bias (n = 4; 1031 observations), rLR-5 also achieved a higher sensitivity than LR-5 (72.3% [95% CI: 63.9, 80.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI: 58.2, 74.5]; P = .02), with similar PPV (83.1% vs 88.7%; P = .47). Conclusion rLR-5 achieved a higher sensitivity for identifying HCC than LR-5 while maintaining a comparable PPV at 90% or more, matching the results presented in the original rLI-RADS study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sirlin and Chernyak in this issue.

Best Practice for MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Research With Lessons and Examples from the LI-RADS Individual Participant Data Group.

Medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy research is strengthened by adhering to best practices for study design, data collection, data documentation, and study reporting. In this review, key elements of such research are discussed, and specific recommendations provided for optimizing diagnostic accuracy study execution to improve uniformity, minimize common sources of bias and avoid potential pitfalls. Examples are provided regarding study methodology and data collection practices based on insights gained by the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) individual participant data group, who have evaluated raw data from numerous MRI diagnostic accuracy studies for risk of bias and data integrity. The goal of this review is to outline strategies for investigators to improve research practices, and to help reviewers and readers better contextualize a study's findings while understanding its limitations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Can we rely on contrast-enhanced CT to identify pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? A population-based study in sensitivity and factors associated with false negatives.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in detecting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and identify factors associated with false negatives (FNs). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PDAC in 2014-2015 were retrospectively identified by a cancer registry. CECTs performed during the diagnostic interval were retrospectively classified as true positive (TP), indeterminate, or FN. Sensitivity TP/(TP+FN) was calculated for all CECTs and the following subgroups: protocol (uniphasic vs. biphasic); tumor size (≤ 2 cm vs. > 2 cm); and resectability (potentially resectable vs. unresectable). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess which of the following factors were associated with FN: clinical suspicion of PDAC; size >2 cm; presence of metastases; protocol; isoattenuating tumor; and potentially resectable disease on imaging. RESULTS: In total, 176 CECTs (127 uniphasic; 49 biphasic) in 154 patients (90 men, mean age 72 ± 11 years) were included. Sensitivity was 125/149 (83.9%) overall and 87/106 (82.1%) and 38/43 (88.4%) for uniphasic and biphasic protocols, respectively. Sensitivity was decreased for tumors ≤ 2 cm (45.4% vs. 90.6%), no liver metastases (78.0% vs. 95.9%), and potentially resectable disease (65.3% vs. 93.0%). Factors significantly associated with FN were clinical suspicion (OR, 0.24, 95% CI: 0.07-0.75), size>2 cm (OR, 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.44), absence of liver metastases (OR, 4.94, 95% CI: 1.29-22.99), and potentially resectable disease (OR, 4.13, 95% CI: 1.07-16.65). CONCLUSIONS: In our population, the overall sensitivity of CECT to detect PDAC is 83.9%; however, this is substantially lower in several scenarios, including patients with potentially resectable disease. This finding has important implications for patient outcomes and efforts to maximize CECT sensitivity should be sought. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The sensitivity of CECT to detect PDAC is significantly decreased in the setting of sub-2 cm tumors and potentially resectable disease. A dedicated biphasic pancreatic CECT protocol has higher sensitivity and should be applied in patients with suspected pancreatic disease. KEY POINTS: • The sensitivities of contrast-enhanced CT for the detection of PDAC were 87/106 (82.1%) and 38/43 (88.4%) for uniphasic and biphasic protocols, respectively. • The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced CT was decreased for small tumors ≤ 2 cm (45.4% vs. 90.6%), if there were no liver metastases (78.0% vs. 95.9%), and with potentially resectable disease (65.3% vs. 93.0%). • Absence of liver metastases (OR, 4.94, 95% CI: 1.29-22.99) and potentially resectable disease (OR, 4.13, 95% CI: 1.07-16.65) were associated with a false--negative (FN) CT result; suspicion of malignancy on the imaging requisition (OR, 0.24, 95% CI: 0.07-0.75) and size > 2 cm (OR, 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.44) were negatively associated with FN.

Late presentation of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome following liver transplantation in the setting of tacrolimus and cannabis use.

A 45-year-old female presented to hospital with confusion and visual disturbances. She had undergone a liver transplant 3 years prior for cirrhosis secondary to primary biliary cholangitis. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain showed features consistent with posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. Her medications included tacrolimus, sirolimus, and prednisone. She reported smoking 4 grams of cannabis per day. Following cessation of tacrolimus, the patient's encephalopathy and visual disturbances resolved. To our knowledge, this case represents the longest time elapsed from liver transplantation to the development of tacrolimus-associated posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in the literature. This case highlights the potential danger of cannabis use in transplant recipients who are on immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus. Clinicians should have a high index of suspicion for posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in post-transplant patients presenting with altered mental status, even years after liver transplantation, and be familiar with potential interactions between cannabis and immunosuppressants.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Guidance on Contrast-Associated Acute Kidney Injury.

Purpose: Iodinated contrast media is one of the most frequently administered pharmaceuticals. In Canada, over 5.4 million computed tomography (CT) examinations were performed in 2019, of which 50% were contrast enhanced. Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurring after iodinated contrast administration was historically considered a common iatrogenic complication which was managed by screening patients, prophylactic strategies, and follow-up evaluation of renal function. The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) initially published guidelines on the prevention of contrast induced nephropathy in 2007, with an update in 2012. However, new developments in the field have led to the availability of safer contrast agents and changes in clinical practice, prompting a complete revision of the earlier recommendations. Information sources: Published literature, including clinical trials, retrospective cohort series, review articles, and case reports, along with expert opinions from radiologists and nephrologists across Canada. Methods: The leadership of the CAR formed a working group of radiologists and nephrologists with expertise in contrast administration and patient management related to contrast-associated AKI. We conducted a comprehensive review of the published literature to evaluate the evidence about contrast as a cause of AKI, and to inform evidence-based recommendations. Based on the available literature, the working group developed consensus recommendations. Key Findings: The working group developed 21 recommendations, on screening, choice of iodinated contrast media, prophylaxis, medication considerations, and post contrast administration management. The key changes from the 2012 guidelines were (1) Simplification of screening to a simple questionnaire, and not delaying emergent examinations due to a need for creatinine measurements (2) Prophylaxis considerations only for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (3) Not recommending the routine discontinuation of any drugs to decrease risk of AKI, except metformin when eGFR is less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and (4) Not requiring routine follow up serum creatinine measurements post iodinated contrast administration. Limitations: We did not conduct a formal systematic review or meta-analysis. We did not evaluate our specific suggestions in the clinical environment. Implications: Given the importance of iodinated contrast media use in diagnosis and management, and the low risk of AKI after contrast use, these guidelines aim to streamline the processes around iodinated contrast use in most clinical settings. As newer evidence arises that may change or add to the recommendations provided, the working group will revise these guidelines.

Justification: Les agents de contraste iodés (ACI) sont parmi les produits pharmaceutiques les plus fréquemment administrés. Au Canada, plus de 5,4 millions d'examens de tomodensitométrie (TDM) ont été réalisés en 2019, dont 50 % ont été faits avec un ACI. L'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) survenant après l'administration d'un ACI était historiquement considérée comme une complication iatrogénique fréquente qui était prise en charge par le dépistage des patients, des stratégies prophylactiques et une évaluation de suivi de la fonction rénale. L'Association canadienne des radiologistes (CAR) a publié des lignes directrices pour la prévention de la néphropathie induite par les agents de contraste en 2007 et une mise à jour en 2012. De nouveaux développements sur le terrain ont toutefois mené à la disponibilité d'agents de contraste plus sécuritaires et à des changements dans la pratique clinique, ce qui a entraîné une révision complète des recommandations antérieures. Sources: La littérature publiée, y compris les essais cliniques, les séries de cohortes rétrospectives, les articles-synthèse et les rapports de cas, de même que les opinions d'experts de radiologistes et de néphrologues de partout au Canada. Méthodologie: La direction de la CAR a formé un groupe de travail composé de radiologues et de néphrologues ayant une expertise dans l'administration d'ACI et la gestion de patients atteints d'IRA survenant après l'administration d'un ACI. Le groupe a procédé à une revue complète de la littérature publiée afin d'évaluer les données probantes sur les ACI comme cause de l'IRA et de formuler des recommandations en fonction de celles-ci. Le groupe de travail a élaboré des recommandations consensuelles en se fondant sur la documentation disponible. Principaux résultats: Le groupe de travail a élaboré 21 recommandations sur le dépistage, le choix des agents de contraste iodés, la prophylaxie, les considérations relatives aux médicaments et la gestion post-administration de l'ACI. Les principaux changements par rapport aux lignes directrices de 2012 étaient : (1) de simplifier le dépistage à un simple questionnaire et de ne pas retarder les examens émergents en raison du besoin de mesurer la créatinine; (2) d'avoir des considérations prophylactiques uniquement pour les patients dont le débit de filtration glomérulaire estimé (DFGe) est inférieur à 30 mL/min/1,73 m2; (3) de ne pas recommander l'arrêt des médicaments visant à réduire le risque d'IRA, comme c'est normalement le cas, sauf la metformine lorsque le DFGe est inférieur à 30 mL/min/1,73 m2 et; (4) ne pas demander de mesures de suivi de routine de la créatinine sérique après administration d'un agent de contraste iodé. Limites: Le groupe n'a pas procédé à une revue formelle et systématique de la littérature sur le sujet ni à une méta-analyse. Les suggestions n'ont pas été évaluées dans un environnement clinique. Conclusion: Compte tenu de l'importance des agents de contraste iodés dans le diagnostic et la prise en charge des patients, et du faible risque d'IRA encouru après leur administration, ces recommandations ne visent qu'à simplifier les processus relatifs à l'utilisation des ACI dans la plupart des milieux cliniques. Le groupe de travail révisera ces lignes directrices au fur et à mesure que des éléments de preuve plus récents seront ajoutés aux recommandations fournies.

Diagnostic Performance and Interreader Agreement of the MRI Clear Cell Likelihood Score for Characterization of cT1a and cT1b Solid Renal Masses: An External Validation Study.

BACKGROUND. The clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) has been proposed for the noninvasive differentiation of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) from other renal neoplasms on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), though further external validation remains needed. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of the ccLS version 2.0 (v2.0) for characterizing solid renal masses as ccRCC. METHODS. This retrospective study included 102 patients (67 men, 35 women; mean age, 56.9 ± 12.8 [SD] years) who underwent mpMRI between January 2013 and February 2018, showing a total of 108 (≥ 25% enhancing tissue) solid renal masses measuring 7 cm or smaller (83 cT1a [≤ 4 cm] and 25 cT1b [> 4 cm and ≤ 7 cm]), all with a histologic diagnosis. Three abdominal radiologists independently reviewed the MRI examinations using ccLS v2.0. Median reader sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were computed for predicting ccRCC by ccLS of 4 or greater, and individual reader AUCs were derived. The percentage of masses that were ccRCC was calculated, stratified by ccLS. Interobserver agreement was assessed by the Fleiss kappa statistic. RESULTS. The sample included 45 ccRCCs (34 cT1a, 11 cT1b), 30 papillary renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), 13 chromophobe RCCs, 14 oncocytomas, and six fat-poor angiomyolipomas. Median reader sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for predicting ccRCC by ccLS of 4 or greater were 85%, 82%, and 83% among cT1a masses and 82%, 100%, and 92% among cT1b masses. The three readers' AUCs for predicting ccRCC by ccLS for cT1a masses were 0.90, 0.84, and 0.89 and for cT1b masses were 0.99, 0.97, and 0.92. Across readers, the percentage of masses that were ccRCC among cT1a masses was 0%, 0%, 20%, 68%, and 93% for ccLS of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively; among cT1b masses, the percentage of masses that were ccRCC was 0%, 0%, 32%, 90%, and 100% for ccLS of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Interobserver agreement among cT1a and cT1b masses for ccLS of 4 or greater was 0.82 and 0.83 and for ccLS of 1-5 overall was 0.65 and 0.62, respectively. CONCLUSION. This study provides external validation of the ccLS, finding overall high measures of diagnostic performance and interreader agreement. CLINICAL IMPACT. The ccLS provides a standardized approach to the noninvasive diagnosis of ccRCC by MRI.

Transabdominal ultrasound of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A multi-centered population-based study in sensitivity, associated diagnostic intervals, and survival.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity of ultrasound (US) in detecting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in our region, to identify factors associated with US test result, and assess the impact on the diagnostic interval and survival. METHODS: Patients diagnosed between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015 in Nova Scotia, Canada were identified by a cancer registry. US performed prior to diagnosis were retrospectively graded as true positive (TP), indeterminate or false negative (FN). Amongst US results, differences in age, weight and tumor size were assessed [one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)]. Associations between result and sex, tumor location (proximal/distal), clinical suspicion of malignancy, and visualization of the pancreas, tumor, secondary signs and liver metastases were assessed (Chi-square). Mean follow-up imaging, diagnostic, and survival intervals were assessed (one-way ANOVA). RESULTS: One hundred thirteen US of 107 patients (54 women; mean 70 ± 13 years) were graded as follows: 48/113 (42.5%) TPs; 42/113 (37.2%) indeterminates; and 23/113 (20.4%) FNs. Sensitivity was 48/71(67.6%). There was no difference in age, weight or tumor size amongst US result (P > 0.5). FNs had proportionally more men (P = 0.011) and lacked clinical suspicion of malignancy (P = 0.0006); TPs had proportionally more proximal tumors (P = 0.017). US result was associated with visualization of the pancreas, tumor, secondary signs and liver metastases (P < 0.005). FNs had longer mean follow-up imaging (P < 0.0001) and diagnostic (P = 0.0007) intervals, and worse mean survival (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: In our region, the sensitivity of US in detecting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 67.6%. A false negative US is associated with delayed diagnostic work-up and worse mean survival.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Guidance on Contrast Associated Acute Kidney Injury.

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) is one of the most frequently administered pharmaceuticals. In Canada, over 5.4 million computed tomography (CT) examinations were performed in 2019, of which 50% were contrast enhanced. Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurring after ICM administration was historically considered a common iatrogenic complication which was managed by screening patients, prophylactic strategies, and follow up evaluation of renal function. The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) initially published guidelines on the prevention of contrast induced nephropathy in 2007, with an update in 2012. However, new developments in the field have led to the availability of safer contrast agents and changes in clinical practice, prompting a complete revision of the earlier recommendations. This revised guidance document was developed by a multidisciplinary CAR Working Group of radiologists and nephrologists, and summarizes changes in practice related to contrast administration, screening, and risk stratification since the last guideline. It reviews the scientific evidence for contrast associated AKI and provides consensus-based recommendations for its prevention and management in the Canadian healthcare context. This article is a joint publication in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal and Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, intended to inform both communities of practice.

Prospective Evaluation of Virtual MR Elastography With Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Subjects With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasingly common worldwide and can lead to the development of cirrhosis, liver failure and cancer. Virtual magnetic resonance elastography (VMRE), which is based on a shifted apparent diffusion coefficient (sADC), is a potential noninvasive method to assess liver fibrosis without the specialized hardware and expertise required to implement traditional MR elastography (MRE). Although hepatic steatosis is known to confound ADC measurements, previous studies using VMRE have not corrected for hepatic fat fraction. PURPOSE: To compare VMRE, corrected for the confounding effects of unsuppressed fat signal, to MRE and biopsy in subjects with suspected NAFLD. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, cross-sectional. POPULATION: A total of 49 adult subjects with suspected NAFLD (18 male; median age 55 years, range 33-74 years) who underwent liver biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T, diffusion-weighted spin echo planar, chemical-shift encoded (IDEAL IQ) and MRE sequences. ASSESSMENT: Two observers drew regions of interest on sADC, proton density fat fraction and MRE-derived stiffness maps. Fat-corrected sADC values were used to calculate the diffusion-based shear modulus according to the VMRE method. Predicted fibrosis stage for MRE and VMRE was determined using previously published cut-off values. STATISTICAL TESTS: The relationship between VMRE and MRE was assessed with least-squares linear regression (coefficient of determination, R2 ). Agreement between MRE and VMRE-predicted fibrosis stage was evaluated with a kappa coefficient and accuracy compared using McNemar's test. A one-way ANOVA determined if the fat-corrected sADC (VMRE) and MRE differed by fibrosis stage. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Least squares regression of VMRE vs. MRE revealed R2  = 0.046 and a slope that was not significantly different from zero (P = 0.14). There was no agreement between MRE and VMRE-predicted fibrosis stage (kappa = -0.01). The proportion of correctly predicted fibrosis stage was significantly higher for MRE compared to VMRE. MRE was significantly associated with fibrosis stage, but fat-corrected sADC was not (P = 0.24). DATA CONCLUSION: Fat-corrected VMRE was not associated with fibrosis stage in NAFLD. Further investigation is required if VMRE is to be considered in subjects with NAFLD. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

CAR Peer Learning Guide.

Peer learning is a quality initiative used to identify potential areas of practice improvement, both on a patient level and on a systemic level. Opportunities for peer learning include review of prior imaging studies, evaluation of cases from multidisciplinary case conferences, and review of radiology trainees' call cases. Peer learning is non-punitive and focuses on promoting life-long learning. It seeks to identify and disseminate learning opportunities and areas for systems improvement compared to traditional peer review. Learning opportunities arise from peer learning through both individual communication of cases reviewed for routine work, as well as through anonymous presentation of aggregate cases in an educational format. In conjunction with other tools such as root cause analysis, peer learning can be used to guide future practice improvement opportunities. This guide provides definitions of terms and a synthetic evidence review regarding peer review and peer learning, as well as medicolegal and jurisdictional considerations. Important aspects of what makes an effective peer learning program and best practices for implementing such a program are presented. The guide is intended to be a living document that will be updated regularly as new data emerges and peer learning continues to evolve in radiology practices.

US LI-RADS Visualization Score: Interobserver Variability and Association With Cause of Liver Disease, Sex, and Body Mass Index.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the interobserver agreement between radiologists using the Ultrasound Liver Reporting And Data System (US LI-RADS) visualization score and assess association between visualization score and cause of liver disease, sex, and body mass index (BMI). METHODS: This retrospective, single institution, cross-sectional study evaluated 237 consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance US examinations between March 4, 2017 and September 4, 2017. Five abdominal radiologists independently assigned a US LI-RADS visualization score (A, no or minimal limitations; B, moderate limitations; C, severe limitations). Interobserver agreement was assessed with a weighted Kappa statistic. Association between US visualization score (A vs B or C) and cause of liver disease, sex, and BMI (< or ≥ 25 kg/m2) was evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The average weighted Kappa statistic for all raters was 0.51. A score of either B or C was assigned by the majority of radiologists in 148/237 cases and was significantly associated with cause of liver disease (P = 0.014) and elevated BMI (P < 0.001). Subjects with viral liver disease were 3.32 times (95% CI: 1.44-8.38) more likely to have a score of A than those with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (P = 0.007). The adjusted odds ratio of visualization score A was 0.249 (95% CI: 0.13-0.48) among those whose BMI was ≥25 kg/m2 vs. BMI < 25 kg/m2. CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement between radiologists using US LI-RADS score was moderate. The majority of US examinations were scored as having moderate or severe limitations, and this was significantly associated with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and increased BMI.

Diagnostic performance of US for suspected appendicitis: Does multi-categorical reporting provide better estimates of disease in adults, and what factors are associated with false or indeterminate results?

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with false or indeterminate US result for suspected appendicitis, and assess whether multi-categorical reporting of US yields more precise estimates regarding the probability of appendicitis. METHODS: 562 US examinations for suspected appendicitis between May 2013-April 2015 were categorized as true (77/562 true positives or true negatives) or false/indeterminate (485/562 false negatives, false positives or indeterminates) based on results from a prior study. Of 541 examinations with images available retrospectively, a category of A-E was assigned as follows: non-visualized appendix with secondary findings (A) absent or (B) present; appendix visualized and considered (C) negative, (D) equivocal, or (E) positive for appendicitis. The following factors were recorded: age; sex; scan time (daytime vs. off-hours); resident/fellow involvement; abdominal subspecialty radiologist; radiologist experience (>5 years or not); and tenderness on interrogation. Associations between factors and US result were assessed (t-tests, Fisher's exact test and multivariate logistic regression). RESULTS: The true group had proportionally more males (18/77 (23.4%) vs. 66/485 (13.6%), p = 0.04) and patients with sonographic tenderness (43/77 (55.8%) vs. 132/353 (27.3%), p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference or association with other factors. On multivariate logistic regression, false/indeterminate results were 1.9 times (95% CIs 1.0-3.5) more likely among females and 3.8 times more likely in the absence of tenderness (95% CIs 2.3-6.4). The proportion of patients with appendicitis in categories A-E was 34/410 (8.3%), 24/44 (54.5%), 0/18 (0%), 0/3 (0%) and 61/66 (92.4%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Females and absence of tenderness were associated with a false/indeterminate US. Categorical reporting provides more granular estimates of the post-test probability of appendicitis.