Search

Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. A search for the underlying cause of infection typically includes radiological imaging as part of this investigation. This document focuses on thoracic and abdominopelvic causes of sepsis. In 2017, the global incidence of sepsis was estimated to be 48.9 million cases, with 11 million sepsis-related deaths (accounting for nearly 20% of all global deaths); therefore, understanding which imaging modalities and types of studies are acceptable or not acceptable is imperative. The 5 variants provided include the most commonly encountered scenarios in the setting of sepsis along with recommendations and data for each imaging study. 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., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diffuse lung disease, frequently referred to as interstitial lung disease, encompasses numerous disorders affecting the lung parenchyma. The potential etiologies of diffuse lung disease are broad with several hundred established clinical syndromes and pathologies currently identified. Imaging plays a critical role in diagnosis and follow-up of many of these diseases, although multidisciplinary discussion is the current standard for diagnosis of several DLDs. This document aims to establish guidelines for evaluation of diffuse lung diseases for 1) initial imaging of suspected diffuse lung disease, 2) initial imaging of suspected acute exacerbation or acute deterioration in cases of confirmed diffuse lung disease, and 3) clinically indicated routine follow-up of confirmed diffuse lung disease without acute deterioration. 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., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing incidentally detected lung findings on thoracic CT. The Chest Subcommittee is composed of thoracic radiologists who endorsed and developed the provided guidance. These recommendations represent a combination of current published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. The recommendations address commonly encountered incidental findings in the lungs and are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all pulmonary incidental findings. The goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on management of incidentally detected thoracic findings., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mediastinal masses can present with symptoms, signs, and syndromes or incidentally. Selecting the appropriate diagnostic imaging study for mediastinal mass evaluation requires awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the various imaging modalities with regard to tissue characterization, soft tissue contrast, and surveillance. This publication expounds on the differences between chest radiography, CT, PET/CT, ultrasound, and MRI in terms of their ability to decipher and surveil mediastinal masses. Making the optimal imaging choice can yield diagnostic specificity, avert unnecessary biopsy and surgery, guide the interventionist when necessary, and serve as a means of surveillance for probably benign, but indeterminate mediastinal masses. 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., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is the clinical entity that occurs with compression of the brachial plexus, subclavian artery, and/or subclavian vein at the superior thoracic outlet. Compression of each of these structures results in characteristic symptoms divided into three variants: neurogenic TOS, venous TOS, and arterial TOS, each arising from the specific structure that is compressed. The constellation of symptoms in each patient may vary, and patients may have more than one symptom simultaneously. Understanding the various anatomic spaces, causes of narrowing, and resulting neurovascular changes is important in choosing and interpreting radiological imaging performed to help diagnose TOS and plan for intervention. This publication has separated imaging appropriateness based on neurogenic, venous, or arterial symptoms, acknowledging that some patients may present with combined symptoms that may require more than one study to fully resolve. Additionally, in the postoperative setting, new symptoms may arise altering the need for specific imaging as compared to preoperative evaluation. 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., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ordering the appropriate diagnostic imaging for occupational lung disease requires a firm understanding of the relationship between occupational exposure and expected lower respiratory track manifestation. Where particular inorganic dust exposures typically lead to nodular and interstitial lung disease, other occupational exposures may lead to isolated small airway obstruction. Certain workplace exposures, like asbestos, increase the risk of malignancy, but also produce pulmonary findings that mimic malignancy. This publication aims to delineate the common and special considerations associated with occupational lung disease to assist the ordering physician in selecting the most appropriate imaging study, while still stressing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. 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., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Accurate risk stratification of pulmonary embolism (PE) can reduce unnecessary imaging. We investigated the extent to which the American College of Physicians (ACP) guideline for evaluation of patients with suspected PE could be applied to cancer patients in the emergency department of a comprehensive cancer center., Materials and Methods: Data from cancer patients who underwent CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) between August 1, 2015, and October 31, 2015, were collected. We assessed each patient's diagnostic workup for its adherence to the ACP guideline in terms of clinical risk stratification and age-adjusted d-dimer level and the degree to which these factors were associated with PE., Results: Of the 380 patients identified, 213 (56%) underwent CTPA indicated per the ACP guideline, and 78 (21%) underwent CTPA not indicated per the guideline. Only one of the patients who underwent nonindicated CTPA had a PE. Fifty-seven patients underwent unnecessary d-dimer evaluation, and 71 patients with negative d-dimer test results underwent nonindicated CTPA. PEs were found in 6 of 108 (6%) low-risk patients, 22 of 219 (10%) intermediate-risk patients, and 13 of 53 (25%) high-risk patients. The ACP guideline had negative predictive value of 99% (95% confidence interval: 93%-100%) and sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval: 86%-100%) in predicting PE., Conclusion: The ACP guideline has good sensitivity for detecting PE in cancer patients and thus can be applied in this population. Compliance with the ACP guideline when evaluating cancer patients with suspected PE could reduce the use of unnecessary imaging and laboratory studies., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The immunocompromised patient with an acute respiratory illness (ARI) may present with fever, chills, weight loss, cough, shortness of breath, or chest pain. The number of immunocompromised patients continues to rise with medical advances including solid organ and stem cell transplantation, chemotherapy, and immunomodulatory therapy, along with the continued presence of human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Given the myriad of pathogens that can infect immunocompromised individuals, identifying the specific organism or organisms causing the lung disease can be elusive. Moreover, immunocompromised patients often receive prophylactic or empiric antimicrobial therapy, further complicating diagnostic evaluation. Noninfectious causes for ARI should also be considered, including pulmonary edema, drug-induced lung disease, atelectasis, malignancy, radiation-induced lung disease, pulmonary hemorrhage, diffuse alveolar damage, organizing pneumonia, lung transplant rejection, and pulmonary thromboembolic disease. As many immunocompromised patients with ARI progress along a rapid and potentially fatal course, timely selection of appropriate imaging is of great importance in this setting. 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., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in both men and women. The major risk factor for lung cancer is personal tobacco smoking, particularly for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and squamous cell lung cancers, but other significant risk factors include exposure to secondhand smoke, environmental radon, occupational exposures, and air pollution. Education and socioeconomic status affect both incidence and outcomes. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large cell carcinoma, comprises about 85% of lung cancers. SCLC accounts for approximately 13% to 15% of cases. Prognosis is directly related to stage at presentation. NSCLC is staged using the eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) criteria of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. For SCLC the eighth edition of TNM staging is recommended to be used in conjunction with the modified Veterans Administration Lung Study Group classification system distinguishing limited stage from extensive stage SCLC. 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., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing incidentally detected mediastinal and cardiovascular findings found on CT. The Chest Subcommittee was composed of thoracic radiologists who developed the provided guidance. These recommendations represent a combination of current published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. The recommendations address the most commonly encountered mediastinal and cardiovascular incidental findings and are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all incidental findings associated with these compartments. Our goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on how to manage incidentally detected thoracic findings., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients referred to tertiary cancer centers often present with imaging studies performed and interpreted at other health care institutions. Although reinterpretation of imaging performed at another health care institution can reduce repeat imaging, unnecessary radiation dose, and cost, the benefit is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of initial imaging studies of patients seeking a second opinion at a tertiary cancer center, to compare the accuracy of initial interpretations to reinterpretations performed by subspecialty trained radiologists at a tertiary oncologic center, and to determine the potential impact on patient management., Methods: An institutional review board-approved retrospective, single-institution database review was performed in 120 new patients presenting to the thoracic surgery clinics at our institution from 2010 through 2013, with initial chest CTs performed at another institution. Two thoracic radiologists blinded to the interpretation independently assessed the quality and performed a reinterpretation of 52 CTs. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which clinically important staging parameters appeared in the reinterpretations and initial reports. Discrepancies between the reinterpretations and initial interpretations were adjudicated independently by two thoracic radiologists at different tertiary cancer institutions to determine which interpretations were more accurate. The impact of discrepancies on clinical management was evaluated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines., Results: Of the 52 CTs, 32 (62%) were of inadequate image quality for staging. In 17 of 52 (33%), discrepancies were identified between reinterpretations and initial interpretations. For discrepancies, the reinterpretation was judged to be more accurate for staging than the initial interpretation. In nine of these patients, staging parameters were omitted in the initial interpretations that precluded adequate staging. In the remaining eight patients, six were upstaged, one was downstaged, and one was unchanged by the reinterpretation., Conclusions: Imaging studies from outside institutions are of variable image quality and often not adequate for appropriate staging of thoracic malignancies. Reinterpretation can decrease repeat imaging and associated technical costs. Additionally, the accuracy of staging is improved by reinterpretation of CTs by subspecialty trained radiologists and can significantly impact clinical management., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)