Search

Purpose: To assess indications, safety, and effectiveness of percutaneous adrenal mass biopsy in contemporary practice., Methods: This institutional review board-approved, retrospective study included all patients undergoing percutaneous image-guided adrenal mass biopsies at an academic health system from January 6, 2015, to January 6, 2023. Patient demographics, biopsy indications, mass size, laboratory data, pathology results, and complications were recorded. Final diagnoses were based on pathology or ≥ 1 year of imaging follow-up when biopsy specimens did not yield malignant tissue. Test performance calculations excluded repeat biopsies. Continuous variables were compared with Student's t test, dichotomous variables with chi-squared test., Results: A total of 160 patients underwent 186 biopsies. Biopsies were indicated to diagnose metastatic disease (139/186; 74.7%), for oncologic research only (27/186; 14.5%), diagnose metastatic disease and oncologic research (15/186; 8%), and diagnose an incidental adrenal mass (5/186; 2.7%). Biopsy specimens were diagnostic in 154 patients (96.3%) and non-diagnostic in 6 (3.8%). Diagnostic biopsies yielded malignant tissue (n = 136), benign adrenal tissue (n = 12), and benign adrenal neoplasms (n = 6) with sensitivity = 98.6% (136/138), specificity = 100% (16/16), positive predictive value = 100% (136/136), and negative predictive value = 88.9% (16/18). Adverse events followed 11/186 procedures (5.9%) and most minor (7/11, 63.6%). The adverse event rate was similar whether tissue was obtained for clinical or research purposes (10/144; 6.9% vs. 1/42; 2.4%, p = 0.27), despite more specimens obtained for research (5.8 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Percutaneous adrenal mass biopsy is safe, accurate, and utilized almost exclusively to diagnose metastatic disease or for oncologic research. The negative predictive value is high when diagnostic tissue samples are obtained. Obtaining specimens for research does not increase adverse event risk., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: To compare thoracic and abdominal radiologists' follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings identified on chest CT., Methods: This Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective study was performed at a large academic medical center with subspecialty radiology divisions. We used a combination of natural language processing and manual reviews to identify chest CT reports with and without abdominal findings that were interpreted by thoracic radiologists in 2019. Three random samples of reports were reviewed by two subspecialty trained abdominal radiologists for their agreement with thoracic radiologists' reporting: abdominal findings with follow-up recommendation (Group 1), abdominal findings without follow-up recommendation (Group 2), and no abdominal findings reported (Group 3). Primary outcome was agreement between thoracic and abdominal radiologists for the need for follow-up of abdominal findings. Secondary outcomes were agreement between subspecialists for the presence of abdominal findings and referring clinician adherence to recommendations. Fischer's exact test was used to compare proportions., Results: Abdominal radiologists agreed with need for follow-up in 48.5% (16/33) of Group 1 cases and agreed follow-up was not necessary for 100% (34/34) of Group 2 cases (p < 0.001). Abdominal radiologists identified abdominal findings in 31.4% (11/35) of Group 3 cases, none of which required follow-up. Referring clinician adherence to thoracic radiologist follow-up recommendations for abdominal findings was 13/33 (39.4%)., Conclusion: Abdominal radiologists frequently disagreed with thoracic radiologist recommendations for follow-up of abdominal findings on chest CT. Chest radiologists may consider abdominal subspecialty consultation or clinical decision support to reduce unnecessary imaging., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Substantial variation in imaging terms used to describe the adrenal gland and adrenal findings leads to ambiguity and uncertainty in radiology reports and subsequently their understanding by referring clinicians. The purpose of this study was to develop a standardized lexicon to describe adrenal imaging findings at CT and MRI., Methods: Fourteen members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology adrenal neoplasm disease-focused panel (SAR-DFP) including one endocrine surgeon participated to develop an adrenal lexicon using a modified Delphi process to reach consensus. Five radiologists prepared a preliminary list of 35 imaging terms that was sent to the full group as an online survey (19 general imaging terms, 9 specific to CT, and 7 specific to MRI). In the first round, members voted on terms to be included and proposed definitions; subsequent two rounds were used to achieve consensus on definitions (defined as ≥ 80% agreement)., Results: Consensus for inclusion was reached on 33/35 terms with two terms excluded (anterior limb and normal adrenal size measurements). Greater than 80% consensus was reached on the definitions for 15 terms following the first round, with subsequent consensus achieved for the definitions of the remaining 18 terms following two additional rounds. No included term had remaining disagreement., Conclusion: Expert consensus produced a standardized lexicon for reporting adrenal findings at CT and MRI. The use of this consensus lexicon should improve radiology report clarity, standardize clinical and research terminology, and reduce uncertainty for referring providers when adrenal findings are present., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Assess use of a diagnostic certainty scale (CS) for abdominal imaging reports and identify factors associated with greater adoption., Methods: This retrospective, Institutional Review Board-exempt study was conducted at an academic health system. Abdominal radiology reports containing diagnostic certainty phrases (DCPs) generated 4/1/2019-3/31/2021 were identified by a natural language processing tool. Reports containing DCPs were subdivided into those with/without a CS inserted at the end. Primary outcome was monthly CS use rate in reports containing DCPs. Secondary outcomes were assessment of factors associated with CS use, and usage of recommended DCPs over time. Chi-square test was used to compare proportions; univariable and multivariable regression assessed impact of other variables., Results: DCPs were used in 81,281/124,501 reports (65.3%). One-month post-implementation, 82/2310 (3.6%) of reports with DCPs contained the CS, increasing to 1862/4644 (40.1%) by study completion (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated reports containing recommended DCPs were more likely to have the CS (Odds Ratio [OR] 4.5; p < 0.001). Using CT as a reference, CS use was lower for ultrasound (OR 0.73; p < 0.001) and X-ray (OR 0.38; p < 0.001). There was substantial inter-radiologist variation in CS use (OR 0.01-26.3, multiple p values)., Conclusion: DCPs are very common in abdominal imaging reports and can be further clarified with CS use. Although voluntary CS adoption increased 13-fold over 2 years, > 50% of reports with DCPs lacked the CS at study's end. More stringent interventions, including embedding the scale in report templates, are likely needed to reduce inter-radiologist variation and decrease ambiguity in conveying diagnostic certainty to referring providers and patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To review the current evidence and guidelines for diagnosis and management of incidental adrenal masses with a focus on the recent changes made by the American College of Radiology (ACR) Incidental Findings Committee., Conclusion: Incidentally detected adrenal nodules are a commonly encountered finding estimated to occur in 5-7% of the adult population. By following current recommendations, radiologists can improve patient care by efficiently determining which masses require further diagnostic testing and which masses can be considered benign and not require further follow-up.

Purpose: To compare diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 with ADC parameters to identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) and to determine the impact of csPC definitions on diagnostic performance of ADC and PI-RADSv2., Methods: We retrospectively identified treatment-naïve pathology-proven peripheral zone PC patients who underwent 3T prostate MRI, using high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging from 2011 to 2015. Using 3D slicer, areas of suspected tumor (T) and normal tissue (N) on ADC (b = 0, 1400) were outlined volumetrically. Mean ADC T , mean ADC N , ADC ratio (ADC T /ADC N ) were calculated. PI-RADSv2 was assigned. Three csPC definitions were used: (A) Gleason score (GS) ≥ 4 + 3; (B) GS ≥ 3 + 4; (C) MRI-based tumor volume >0.5 cc. Performances of ADC parameters and PI-RADSv2 in identifying csPC were measured using nonparametric comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves using the area under the curve (AUC)., Results: Eighty five cases met eligibility requirements. Diagnostic performances (AUC) in identifying csPC using three definitions were: (A) ADC T (0.83) was higher than PI-RADSv2 (0.65, p = 0.006); (B) ADC T (0.86) was higher than ADC ratio (0.68, p < 0.001), and PI-RADSv2 (0.70, p = 0.04); (C) PI-RADSv2 (0.73) performed better than ADC ratio (0.56, p = 0.02). ADC T performance was higher when csPC was defined by A or B versus C (p = 0.038 and p = 0.01, respectively). ADC ratio performed better when csPC was defined by A versus C (p = 0.01). PI-RADSv2 performance was not affected by csPC definition., Conclusions: When csPC was defined by GS, ADC parameters provided better csPC discrimination than PI-RADSv2, with ADC T providing best result. When csPC was defined by MRI-calculated volume, PI-RADSv2 provided better discrimination than ADC ratio . csPC definition did not affect PI-RADSv2 diagnostic performance.

Purpose: To determine test characteristics of CT urography for detecting bladder cancer in patients with hematuria and those undergoing surveillance, and to analyze reasons for false-positive and false-negative results., Methods: A HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective review of reports from 1623 CT urograms between 10/2010 and 12/31/2013 was performed. 710 examinations for hematuria or bladder cancer history were compared to cystoscopy performed within 6 months. Reference standard was surgical pathology or 1-year minimum clinical follow-up. False-positive and false-negative examinations were reviewed to determine reasons for errors., Results: Ninety-five bladder cancers were detected. CT urography accuracy: was 91.5% (650/710), sensitivity 86.3% (82/95), specificity 92.4% (568/615), positive predictive value 63.6% (82/129), and negative predictive value was 97.8% (568/581). Of 43 false positives, the majority of interpretation errors were due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (n = 12), trabeculated bladder (n = 9), and treatment changes (n = 8). Other causes include blood clots, mistaken normal anatomy, infectious/inflammatory changes, or had no cystoscopic correlate. Of 13 false negatives, 11 were due to technique, one to a large urinary residual, one to artifact. There were no errors in perception., Conclusion: CT urography is an accurate test for diagnosing bladder cancer; however, in protocols relying predominantly on excretory phase images, overall sensitivity remains insufficient to obviate cystoscopy. Awareness of bladder cancer mimics may reduce false-positive results. Improvements in CTU technique may reduce false-negative results.

Objective: To determine if tumor cell density and percentage of Gleason pattern within an outlined volumetric tumor region of interest (TROI) on whole-mount pathology (WMP) correlate with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values on corresponding TROIs outlined on pre-operative MRI., Methods: Men with biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma undergoing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to prostatectomy were consented to this prospective study. WMP and mpMRI images were viewed using 3D Slicer and each TROI from WMP was contoured on the high b-value ADC maps (b0, 1400). For each TROI outlined on WMP, TCD (tumor cell density) and the percentage of Gleason pattern 3, 4, and 5 were recorded. The ADC mean , ADC 10th percentile , ADC 90th percentile , and ADC ratio were also calculated in each case from the ADC maps using 3D Slicer., Results: Nineteen patients with 21 tumors were included in this study. ADC mean values for TROIs were 944.8 ± 327.4 vs. 1329.9 ± 201.6 mm 2 /s for adjacent non-neoplastic prostate tissue (p < 0.001). ADC mean , ADC 10th percentile , and ADC ratio values for higher grade tumors were lower than those of lower grade tumors (mean 809.71 and 1176.34 mm 2 /s, p = 0.014; 10th percentile 613.83 and 1018.14 mm 2 /s, p = 0.009; ratio 0.60 and 0.94, p = 0.005). TCD and ADC mean (ρ = -0.61, p = 0.005) and TCD and ADC 10th percentile (ρ = -0.56, p = 0.01) were negatively correlated. No correlation was observed between percentage of Gleason pattern and ADC values., Conclusion: DWI MRI can characterize focal prostate cancer using ADC ratio , ADC 10th percentile , and ADC mean , which correlate with pathological tumor cell density.

The most recent edition of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS version 2) was developed based on expert consensus of the international working group on prostate cancer. It provides the minimum acceptable technical standards for MR image acquisition and suggests a structured method for multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) reporting. T1-weighted, T2-weighted (T2W), diffusion-weighted (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging are the suggested sequences to include in mpMRI. The PI-RADS version 2 scoring system enables the reader to assess and rate all focal lesions detected at mpMRI to determine the likelihood of a clinically significant cancer. According to PI-RADS v2, a lesion with a Gleason score ≥7, volume >0.5 cc, or extraprostatic extension is considered clinically significant. PI-RADS v2 uses the concept of a dominant MR sequence based on zonal location of the lesion rather than summing each component score, as was the case in version 1. The dominant sequence in the peripheral zone is DWI and the corresponding apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map, with a secondary role for DCE in equivocal cases (PI-RADS score 3). For lesions in the transition zone, T2W images are the dominant sequence with DWI/ADC images playing a supporting role in the case of an equivocal lesion., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.