Search

Aim: To obtain information regarding the demographics of attendees of computed tomography colonography (CTC) training workshops organized by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), in particular their prior expertise and current practice. Materials and methods: Attendees at five CTC training workshops conducted in Edinburgh (UK), Malmo (Sweden), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Pisa and Stresa (Italy) between February 2007 and April 2010 completed an online questionnaire. Responses were collated and descriptive statistics produced. Results: Three hundred and forty-eight delegates responded; a response rate of 73%. There was wide geographical variability encompassing 20 European member-states and seven countries outside Europe. The overwhelming majority were radiologists (336; 97%). Of the respondents, 299 (86%) were already interpreting CTC in clinical practice but of these, 158 (54%) had no prior formal training in CTC whereas 21 (8%) had attended a previous workshop. Furthermore, of those reporting CTC, 227 (76%) had interpreted fewer than 50 cases. Conclusions: Despite political imperatives for other groups to interpret CTC, the vast majority of those attending training are radiologists. Worryingly, a significant proportion of these are apparently reporting CTC in clinical practice without adequate training. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: To develop guidelines describing a standardised approach regarding the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer., Methods: A consensus meeting of 14 abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) was conducted following the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) chairs facilitated the meeting. Two hundred and thirty-six items were scored by participants for appropriateness and classified subsequently as appropriate or inappropriate (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Items not reaching 80 % consensus were noted., Results: Consensus was reached for 88 % of items: recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences, angulation, criteria for MRI assessment and MRI reporting were constructed from these., Conclusions: These expert consensus recommendations can be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI., Key Points: • These guidelines recommend standardised imaging for staging and restaging of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 abdominal imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by in 88 % of 236 items discussed.

The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings., (Copyright © 2013 European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR)., Material and Methods: A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2 months interval., Results: The panel elaborated 86 statements. In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82 %). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement. Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting., Conclusion: The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating.

The purpose of this study was to investigate if experienced readers differ when matching polyps shown by both CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) and to explore the reasons for discrepancy. Twenty-eight CTC cases with corresponding OC were presented to eight experienced CTC readers. Cases represented a broad spectrum of findings, not completely fulfilling typical matching criteria. In 21 cases there was a single polyp on CTC and OC; in seven there were multiple polyps. Agreement between readers for matching was analyzed. For the 21 single-polyp cases, the number of correct matches per reader varied from 13 to 19. Almost complete agreement between readers was observed in 15 cases (71%), but substantial discrepancy was found for the remaining six (29%) probably due to large perceived differences in polyp size between CT and OC. Readers were able to match between 27 (71%) and 35 (92%) of the 38 CTC detected polyps in the seven cases with multiple polyps. Experienced CTC readers agree to a considerable extent when matching polyps between CTC and subsequent OC, but non-negligible disagreement exists.

Our purpose was to assess the effect of reader experience, fatigue, and scan findings on interpretation time for CT colonography. Nine radiologists (experienced in CT colonography); nine radiologists and ten technicians (both groups trained using 50 validated examinations) read 40 cases (50% abnormal) under controlled conditions. Individual interpretation times for each case were recorded, and differences between groups determined. Multi-level linear regression was used to investigate effect of scan category (normal or abnormal) and observer fatigue on interpretation times. Experienced radiologists (mean time 10.9 min, SD 5.2) reported significantly faster than less experienced radiologists and technicians; odds ratios of reporting times 1.4 (CI 1.1, 1.8) and 1.6 (1.3, 2.0), respectively (P

A consensus development meeting was held to evaluate whether or not in the Netherlands all requirements were fulfilled for implementation of population screening with FOBT for colorectal cancer, or whether consensus was present that fulfilment by additional research or organisational actions could be obtained within 2-3 years. There was consensus that all classical Wilson and Jungner (1968) criteria, and six additional ones added more recently, had already been fulfilled or could be fulfilled within 2-3 years. Consequently, it was concluded that a national population screening for colorectal cancer should be implemented and carried out in the Netherlands in line with current national and European cancer screening programmes. A list of organisational actions to be taken was established. Research that is needed before the actual national launch of the screening within 2-3 years has been defined. Priorities have to be set for research and organisational actions for the coming 2-3 years for the implementation of population screening. In addition, research suggestions have been defined for the next 10-15 years for evaluation and/or improvement of implemented FOBT screening, and for future screening methodology. It was considered essential that infrastructure for future research would be embedded in the screening programme. A project group to arrange this should be formed.