Search

Khaled M Elsayes,1 Ania Z Kielar,2 Victoria Chernyak,3 Ali Morshid,1 Alessandro Furlan,4 William R Masch,5 Robert M Marks,6 Aya Kamaya,7 Richard KG Do,8 Yuko Kono,9 Kathryn J Fowler,9 An Tang,10 Mustafa R Bashir,11 Elizabeth M Hecht,12 Kedar Jambhekar,13 Andrej Lyshchik,14 Shuchi K Rodgers,14 Jay P Heiken,15 Marc Kohli,16 David T Fetzer,17 Stephanie R Wilson,18 Zahra Kassam,19 Mishal Mendiratta-Lala,5 Amit G Singal,17 Christopher S Lim,20 Irene Cruite,21 James Lee,22 Ryan Ash,23 Donald G Mitchell,14 Matthew DF McInnes,24 Claude B Sirlin9 1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; 2Department of Radiology, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 4Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 5Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 6Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA; 7Department of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA; 8Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; 9Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, CA, USA; 10Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada; 11Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced Magnetic Resonance Development, and Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 12Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 13Department of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 14Department of Radiology, Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 15Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 16Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA; 17Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; 18Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 19Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Schulich School of Medicine, London, ON, Canada; 20Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, ON, Canada; 21Department of Radiology, Inland Imaging, Spokane, WA, USA; 22Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 23Department of Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA; 24Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada Abstract: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS®) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver observations in individuals at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS is supported and endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Upon its initial release in 2011, LI-RADS applied only to liver observations identified at CT or MRI. It has since been refined and expanded over multiple updates to now also address ultrasound-based surveillance, contrast-enhanced ultrasound for HCC diagnosis, and CT/MRI for assessing treatment response after locoregional therapy. The LI-RADS 2018 version was integrated into the HCC diagnosis, staging, and management practice guidance of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). This article reviews the major LI-RADS updates since its 2011 inception and provides an overview of the currently published LI-RADS algorithms. Keywords: LI-RADS, v2018, CT, MRI, CEUS, US, HCC, liver imaging, reporting, cirrhosis

Khaled M Elsayes,1 Ania Z Kielar,2 Michelle M Agrons,3 Janio Szklaruk,1 An Tang,4 Mustafa R Bashir,5 Donald G Mitchell,6 Richard K Do,7 Kathryn J Fowler,8 Victoria Chernyak,9 Claude B Sirlin10 1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; 2Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 3Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 4Department of Radiology, Radio-Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 5Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 6Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 7Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 8Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, 9Department of Radiology Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, NY, 10Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA Abstract: The increasing incidence and high morbidity and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have inspired the creation of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). LI-RADS aims to reduce variability in exam interpretation, improve communication, facilitate clinical therapeutic decisions, reduce omission of pertinent information, and facilitate the monitoring of outcomes. LI-RADS is a dynamic process, which is updated frequently. In this article, we describe the LI-RADS 2014 version (v2014), which marks the second update since the initial version in 2011. Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, imaging, reporting, cirrhosis, hyperenhancement washout

With the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma, there has been increasing use of local-regional therapy (LRT) to downstage or bridge to transplant, for definitive treatment, and for palliation. The CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Treatment Response Assessment (TRA) algorithm provides guidance for step-by-step tumor assessment after LRT and standardized reporting. Current evidence suggests that the algorithm performs well in the assessment of tumor response to arterial embolic and loco-ablative therapies and fair when assessing response to radiation-based therapies, with limited data to validate the latter. Both evidence-based and expert-based refinements of the algorithm are needed to improve its diagnostic accuracy after varying types of LRT. This review provides an overview of the challenges and limitations of the LI-RADS TRA algorithm version 2017 and discusses the refinements introduced in the updated 2024 LI-RADS algorithm for CT/MRI., (© RSNA, 2024.)

Purpose: Assess the effectiveness of standardizing multidisciplinary case conferences (MDCs). Methods: Anonymous electronic surveys gauged opinions of abdominal radiologists engaged in recurring MDCs. A standardized Excel template, following Cancer Care Ontario guidelines and relevant literature, was distributed to MDC managers. Physicians were instructed to send cases 36 hours prior to MDC. Template adherence was assessed at 1.5 and 8 months. A follow-up survey at 4 months evaluated the intervention's effectiveness. Results: 27/34 abdominal radiologists provided 47 baseline responses, and 12 delegated radiologists provided 23 follow-up responses. "Often/always" being provided the image's location increased from 36% (17/47) at baseline to 70% (16/23) at follow-up. Non-adherence to the 36-hour cut-off decreased from 36% (16/45) to 17% (4/23). 72% disagreed that uploading remote imaging to hospital servers is easy (33/46), similar to follow-up (18/23, 78%). In assessing the intervention, 41% noted improved standardization (9/22), another 41% considered MDCs already standardized (9/22), and 18% reported no change (4/22). Those reporting no change experienced a higher frequency of non-adherence to the 36-hour cut-off (3/4, 75%) than others (1/18, 6%), and less frequent "often/always" ratings for image location being provided (3/4, 75%) than others (2/18, 11%). 89% (25/28) of MDCs adhered to the template. Issues regarding last-minute add-on cases may be mitigated through EPIC force functions. Artificial intelligence advancements may assist in retrieving external images and patient information. Conclusion: Adherence to MDC standardization was high, allowing for more efficient preparation, potentially reducing radiologist administrative burdens. Future force functions and artificial intelligence integration into electronic patient records may further augment this., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Ania Z. Kielar is the President of The Canadian Association of Radiologists.

Endometriosis is a common condition impacting approximately 190 million individuals and up to 50% of women with infertility globally. The disease is characterized by endometrial-like tissue located outside of the uterine corpus, which causes cyclical hemorrhage, inflammation, and fibrosis. Based on clinical suspicion or findings at routine transvaginal pelvic US or other prior imaging, dedicated imaging for endometriosis may be warranted with MRI or advanced transvaginal US. Deep endometriosis (DE) in the pelvis includes evaluation for stromal and fibrotic components and architectural distortion resulting from fibrosis and tethering. It is a disease requiring a compartment-based, pattern-recognition approach. MRI has the benefit of global assessment of the pelvis and is effective in assessing for features of malignancy and for evaluating extrapelvic locations. Transvaginal US has the advantage of dynamic maneuvers to assess for adhesions and may achieve higher spatial resolution for assessing the depth of bowel wall invasion. T1-weighted MRI evaluation increases the specificity of diagnosis by identifying hemorrhagic components, but the presence of T1 signal hyperintensity is not essential for diagnosing DE. Endometriosis is a disease with a broad spectrum; understanding the mild through advanced manifestations, including malignancy evaluation, is within the scope and breadth of radiologists' interpretation., (© RSNA, 2024.)

Purpose: The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Endometriosis Working Group developed a national survey to evaluate current practice patterns associated with imaging endometriosis using advanced pelvic ultrasound and MRI to inform forthcoming clinical practice guidelines for endometriosis imaging. Methods: The anonymous survey consisted of 36 questions and was distributed electronically to CAR members. The survey contained a mix of multiple choice, Likert scale and open-ended questions intended to collect information about training and certification, current practices and protocols associated with imaging endometriosis, opportunities for quality improvement and continuing professional development. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Results: Canadian radiologists were surveyed about their experience with imaging endometriosis. A total of 89 responses were obtained, mostly from Ontario and Quebec. Most respondents were community radiologists, and almost 33% were in their first five years of practice. Approximately 38% of respondents reported that they or their institution performed advanced pelvic ultrasound for endometriosis, with most having done so for less than 5 years, and most having received training during residency or fellowship. 70% of respondents stated they currently interpret pelvic endometriosis MRI, with most having 1-5 years of experience. Conclusion: Many radiologists in Canada do not perform dedicated imaging for endometriosis. This may be due to a lack of understanding of the benefits and limited access to training. However, dedicated imaging can improve patient outcomes and decrease repeated surgeries. The results highlight the importance of developing guidelines for these imaging techniques and promoting a multidisciplinary approach to endometriosis management., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Purpose: The aim was to reduce outpatient wait time and improve patient experience by optimising oral contrast use . Methods: Our multidisciplinary stakeholder collaboration implemented two simultaneous interventions: (1) Creation of 'oral contrast policy', limiting recommended indications. (2) Creation of a new shorter oral contrast regime (30 vs 60 min). We conducted a retrospective service evaluation of oral contrast use in outpatient (OP) abdominal CT at baseline and post-intervention. Patient wait times were measured and per-patient cost-savings were reported. An image quality review was performed by 2 blinded abdominal radiologists. Patient experience was evaluated with a standard voluntary survey. Statistical analysis was performed comparing baseline and evaluation outcomes using Chi-square or Fisher Exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test or ANOVA for continuous data. Results: Over 1-month periods, OP CT scans were assessed in baseline (pre-pandemic) n = 575, baseline (pandemic) n = 495 and post-intervention n = 545 groups. Oral contrast use reduced from 420/575, 73.0% at baseline to 178/545, 32.7% post intervention. The turn-around time reduced by 15.8 minutes per patient from 70.3 to 54.5 minutes, P < .001 (Interventions 1 and 2). The diagnostic quality did not differ between the oral contrast regimes (Intervention 2, P = 1.0, P = .08). No repeat CTs were needed due to lack of oral contrast (Intervention 1) or poor opacification (Intervention 2). There was oral contrast cost reductions of 69.1-78.4% ( P < .001). Patients reported their overall experience was improved post-intervention (Interventions 1 and 2). Conclusions: Optimising the CT oral contrast service through judicious use and a shorter regime, reduced patient wait times, improved patient experience and preserved diagnostic quality., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Endometriosis Working Group was tasked with providing guidance and benchmarks to ensure the quality of technique and interpretation for advanced imaging modalities associated with diagnosing endometriosis. This practice statement provides an overview of the state of the art of advanced pelvic ultrasound in the diagnosis and mapping of pelvic endometriosis. While acknowledging that advanced pelvic ultrasound in some practices falls within the scope of clinical colleagues rather than imaging departments, the statement seeks to guide radiologists interested in implementing these techniques into their practice for patients referred for evaluation and diagnosis of endometriosis. The statement covers indications, some components of the ultrasound assessment and technique, reporting, and recommendations for starting an ultrasound endometriosis evaluation program., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Unrelated to the recommendations contained herein, Dr. Leonardi is a member of the AbbVie advisory board; has delivered lectures for AbbVie, Hologic, and TerSera; has received research grants from Hyivy, AIMA, and AbbVie; and has participated in clinical trials within the past 36 months funded by Hyivy, and AIMA.

The need for liver transplants is increasing because the prevalence of liver diseases and the indications for transplants are growing. In response to the shortage of grafts from deceased donors, more transplants are being performed worldwide with grafts from living donors. Radiologic evaluation is an integral component in the assessment of donor candidates to ensure their eligibility and to choose the most appropriate surgical approach. MRI is the preferred modality for evaluation of the liver parenchyma and biliary tree. In most centers, a combination of MRI and CT is used to take advantage of the higher spatial resolution of CT for evaluation of arteries. However, MRI-only assessment is feasible. In addition to assessment of the liver parenchyma for abnormalities such as steatosis, a detailed evaluation of the hepatic vascular and biliary system for pertinent anatomic variants is crucial, because these variants can affect surgical techniques and outcomes in both recipients and donors. In this pictorial article, after a brief review of the most common surgical techniques and postsurgical liver anatomy, the biliary and vascular anatomy are discussed, with specific attention paid to the variants that are pertinent to this surgical procedure. The roles of liver segmentation and volumetric assessment and current imaging techniques and protocols are also discussed. Online supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2021.

Effective communication between radiologists and physicians involved in the management of patients with chronic liver disease is paramount to ensuring appropriate and advantageous incorporation of liver imaging findings into patient care. This review discusses the clinical benefits of innovations in radiology reporting, what information the various stakeholders wish to know from the radiologist, and how radiology can help to ensure the effective communication of findings., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Multidisciplinary conferences (MDCs) play a major role in management and care of oncology patients. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex disease benefiting from multidisciplinary discussions to determine optimal patient management. A multitude of liver-directed locoregional therapies have emerged allowing for more options for treatment of HCC. A radiologist dedicated to HCC-MDC is an important member of the team contributing to patient care in multiple ways. The radiologist plays a key role in image interpretation guiding initial therapy discussions as well as interpreting post-treatment imaging following liver-directed therapy. Standardization of image interpretation can lead to more consistent treatment received by the patient as well as accurate assessment of transplant eligibility. The radiologist can facilitate this process using structured reporting that is also supported by stakeholders involved in interdisciplinary management of liver diseases. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), is a living document which offers a standardized reporting algorithm for consistent communication of radiologic findings for HCC screening and characterization of liver observations in patients at risk for HCC. The LI-RADS post-treatment algorithm (LR-TR algorithm) has been developed to standardize liver observations following liver-directed locoregional therapy. This review article focuses on the role of the radiologist at HCC-MDC and implementation of the LR-TR algorithm for improving workflow., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The imaging findings after loco regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma are variable based on the type of treatment used, the timing interval of imaging after treatment, and the cross-sectional modality used for treatment response assessment. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Treatment Response Algorithm (TRA) is a relatively new standardized method of evaluating treatment response after loco regional therapy to hepatocellular carcinoma. In this article, we provide an overview of the evolution of the treatment response algorithm, its current applicability and its outlook for the future. We will review current guidelines and discuss proposed changes to the algorithm as a means to continually improve LI-RADS TRA as an assessment tool post-loco regional treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has drastically disrupted radiology in-person education. The purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of a virtual teaching method using available technology and its role in the continuity of education of practicing radiologists and trainees during the pandemic., Methods: The authors created the Online Liver Imaging Course (OLIC) that comprised 28 online comprehensive lectures delivered in real-time and on-demand over six weeks. Radiologists and radiology trainees were asked to register to attend the live sessions. At the end of the course, we conducted a 46-question survey among registrants addressing their training level, perception of virtual conferencing, and evaluation of the course content., Results: One thousand four hundred and thirty four radiologists and trainees completed interest sign up forms before the start of the course with the first webinar having the highest number of live attendees (343 people). On average, there were 89 live participants per session and 750 YouTube views per recording (as of July 9, 2020). After the end of the course, 487 attendees from 37 countries responded to the postcourse survey for an overall response rate of (33%). Approximately (63%) of participants were practicing radiologists while (37%) were either fellows or residents and rarely medical students. The overwhelming majority (97%) found the OLIC webinar series to be beneficial. Essentially all attendees felt that the webinar sessions met (43%) or exceeded (57%) their expectations. When asked about their perception of virtual conferences after attending OLIC lectures, almost all attendees (99%) enjoyed the virtual conference with a majority (61%) of the respondents who enjoyed the virtual format more than in-person conferences, while (38%) enjoyed the webinar format but preferred in-person conferences. When asked about the willingness to attend virtual webinars in the future, (84%) said that they would attend future virtual conferences even if in-person conferences resume while (15%) were unsure., Conclusion: The success of the OLIC, attributed to many factors, indicates that videoconferencing technology provides an inexpensive alternative to in-person radiology conferences. The positive responses to our postcourse survey suggest that virtual education will remain to stay. Educational institutions and scientific societies should foster such models., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus. Public information created awareness as well as concern in the general population. There has been a reported decrease in the number of patients attending emergency departments (ED) during the pandemic. This is the first study to determine differences in the types of presenting illnesses, severity, and rate of resultant surgical intervention during the pandemic., Methods and Materials: We carried out a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing two groups of patients attending the ED at our tertiary-care academic hospital. A historical comparison cohort was obtained by reviewing the number of patients referred by the ED for abdominal CT between March 15 and April 15, 2020, compared with March 15 and April 15, 2019. CT reports were reviewed; primary pathologies, complications, and subsequent surgical intervention were documented and compared between the two groups., Results: In all, 733 patients were included in the 2019 cohort, and 422 patients were included in the 2020 cohort. In 2019, 32.7% had positive CT findings, increasing to 50.5% in 2020. The number of complications increased from 7.9% to 19.7%. The rate requiring surgical intervention increased from 26.3% to 47.6% in 2020., Conclusion: To date, there is little published data regarding the presentation and severity of illnesses during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This information has important public health implications, highlighting the need to educate patients to continue to present to hospital services during such crises, including if a purported second wave of COVID-19 arises., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine preferences of clinicians and surgeons regarding radiology reporting of liver observations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: Members of the American College of Radiology Liver Imaging and Data Reporting System (LI-RADS) Outreach & Education Group (30 members) as well as Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on HCC diagnosis (27 members) created and distributed an 18-question survey to clinicians and surgeons, with focus on preferences regarding radiology reporting of liver observations in patients. The survey questions were directed to physician demographics, current use of LI-RADS by their local radiologists, their opinions about current LI-RADS and potential improvements., Results: A total of 152 physicians responded, 66.4% (101/152) from North America, including 42 surgeons, 81 physicians and 29 interventional radiologists. Participants were predominantly from academic centers 83% (126/152), while 13.8% (21/152) worked in private/community centers and 3.2% (5/152) worked in a hybrid practice. Almost 90% (136/152) of participants preferred the use of LI-RADS (compared to nothing or other standardized reporting systems; OPTN and AASLD) to communicate liver-related observations. However, only 28.5% (43/152) of participants input was sought at the time of implementing LI-RADS in their institutions. Fifty-eight percent (88/152) of all participants found standardized LI-RADS management recommendations in radiology reports to be clinically helpful. However, a subgroup analysis of surgeons in academic centers showed that 61.8% (21/34) prefer not to receive standardized LI-RADS recommendations., Conclusions: Most participants preferred the use LI-RADS in reporting CT and MRI examination. When considering inclusion of management recommendations, radiologists should consult with their referring physicians, as preference may differ.

Imaging of primary hepatic neoplasms in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and in patients with otherwise normal livers relies on proper multiphase image acquisition technique, with emphasis on a high-quality, late arterial phase, using either CT or MRI for accurate image interpretation. The introduction of liver imaging reporting and data system in 2011, with subsequent multiple updates, the most recent in 2018, has provided standardization of image interpretation, reporting and management recommendations for liver observations in patients at risk for HCC. This review article will emphasize key points of imaging primary liver tumors with emphasis on liver imaging reporting and data system, including strengths of this system. We will also review imaging of less common primary liver tumors such as cholangiocarcinoma and angiosarcomas. Imaging pitfall associated with primary liver malignancies will be demonstrated as well as ways to mitigate them. Finally, imaging and reporting of findings following locoregional treatment of HCC will be reviewed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver imaging, created specifically for patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the past years, LI-RADS has been progressively implemented into clinical practice, but pitfalls remain related to user error and inherent limitations of the system. User pitfalls include the inappropriate application of LI-RADS to a low-risk patient population, incorrect measurement techniques, inaccurate assumptions about LI-RADS requirements, and improper usage of LI-RADS terminology and categories. System pitfalls include areas of discordance with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) as well as pitfalls related to rare ancillary features. This article reviews common user pitfalls in applying LI-RADS v2018 and how to avoid preventable errors and also highlights deficiencies of the current version of LI-RADS and how it might be improved in the future. Level of Evidence:3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1673-1686., (© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is composed of four individual algorithms intended to standardize the lexicon, as well as reporting and care, in patients with or at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma in the context of surveillance with US; diagnosis with CT, MRI, or contrast material-enhanced US; and assessment of treatment response with CT or MRI. This report provides a broad overview of LI-RADS, including its historic development, relationship to other imaging guidelines, composition, aims, and future directions. In addition, readers will understand the motivation for and key components of the 2018 update., (© RSNA, 2018.)

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) standardizes performance of liver imaging in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as well as interpretation and reporting of the results. Developed by experts in liver imaging and supported by the American College of Radiology, LI-RADS assigns to observations categories that reflect the relative probability of benignity, HCC, or other malignancy. While category assignment is based mainly on major imaging features, ancillary features may be applied to improve detection and characterization, increase confidence, or adjust LI-RADS categories. Ancillary features are classified as favoring malignancy in general, HCC in particular, or benignity. Those favoring malignancy in general or HCC in particular may be used to upgrade by a maximum of one category up to LR-4; those favoring benignity may be used to downgrade by a maximum of one category. If there are conflicting ancillary features (ie, one or more favoring malignancy and one or more favoring benignity), the category should not be adjusted. Ancillary features may be seen at diagnostic CT, MRI performed with extracellular agents, or MRI performed with hepatobiliary agents, with the exception of one ancillary feature assessed at US. This article focuses on LI-RADS version 2018 ancillary features seen at MRI. Specific topics include rules for ancillary feature application; definitions, rationale, and illustrations with clinical MRI examples; summary of evidence and diagnostic performance; pitfalls; and future directions. © RSNA, 2018.

Purpose: To determine whether an ultrasonography (US)-defined thyroid volume can accurately predict substernal extension or tracheal narrowing., Methods: After research ethics approval, we identified patients with thyroid nodules investigated with both US and computed tomography (CT). Reviewers assigned scores for both substernal extension and tracheal compression on CT using pre-established classification systems. Statistical analysis with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to find the US-determined thyroid volume thresholds that correlated with each substernal extension and tracheal compression., Results: This study included 120 patients (mean age 63.4 years; SD ± 15.9; 67% female). Thirty-five patients (29%) had substernal extension. The mean US total thyroid gland volume in patients with and without substernal extension were 92.4 and 37.6 cm 3 , respectively (P < .001). 86% of patients with substernal extension had tracheal narrowing vs. 27% of patients without substernal extension (P < .0001). A cutoff dominant gland volume of ≥37.5 cm 3 showed 83% sensitivity and 79% specificity for substernal extension (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.84). A total thyroid gland volume threshold of ≥37.8 cm 3 showed 89% sensitivity and 87% specificity for any degree of tracheal narrowing (AUC = 0.90)., Conclusions: This study suggests that US volumes may be used as a predictor to identify those patients with thyroid enlargement who are most at risk of substernal extension and tracheal compression and who may benefit from preoperative CT imaging for optimal surgical and anesthetic planning., (Copyright © 2018 Canadian Association of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver imaging with the overarching goal of improving communication, clinical care, education, and research relating to patients at risk for or diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In 2018, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) integrated LI-RADS into its clinical practice guidance for the imaging-based diagnosis of HCC. The harmonization between the AASLD and LI-RADS diagnostic imaging criteria required minor modifications to the recently released LI-RADS v2017 guidelines, necessitating a LI-RADS v2018 update. This article provides an overview of the key changes included in LI-RADS v2018 as well as a look at the LI-RADS v2018 diagnostic algorithm and criteria, technical recommendations, and management suggestions. Substantive changes in LI-RADS v2018 are the removal of the requirement for visibility on antecedent surveillance ultrasound for LI-RADS 5 (LR-5) categorization of 10-19 mm observations with nonrim arterial phase hyper-enhancement and nonperipheral "washout", and adoption of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network definition of threshold growth (≥ 50% size increase of a mass in ≤ 6 months). Nomenclatural changes in LI-RADS v2018 are the removal of -us and -g as LR-5 qualifiers.

Introduction: Radiologists and other specialty consultants play a role in diagnosing patients with acute abdominal conditions. Numerous Computed Tomography (CT) protocols are available and radiologists' choices are influenced by the clinical history provided. We hypothesize that the quality of the initial communication between referring physicians and radiologists greatly affects the utilization of health resources and subsequent patient care. The purpose of this pilot study was to employ a grading system to quantitatively evaluate a provided history. We also sought to evaluate inter-rater reliability by having radiologists evaluate sample histories and finally, to assess whether the quality of history has an impact on the number of CT protocols radiologists choose as potentially appropriate, with less potential protocols being seen as a positive outcome., Methods: Four reviewers, (2 attendings and 2 residents) evaluated 350 consecutive clinical histories provided for patients presenting to a tertiary care Emergency Department (ED) between September-October, 2012. Reviewers graded histories on a 5-point scale using 4 categories of criteria. This includes a) presenting complaint, b) relevant past medical history or symptom evolution, c) objective laboratory or prior examination results and d) differential diagnosis., Results: There was substantial agreement among all four reviewers when evaluating the quality of history, ICC 0.61, (95% CI 0.48-0.71). In particular, agreement amongst attending radiologists was substantial, with ICC 0.69 (0.48-0.80). Significant negative correlation was observed between history grade and number of potentially appropriate protocols in 3 of 4 reviewers (Spearman's rho: -0.394, -0.639, -0.864, p <0.0001 for these reviewers). This correlation was significantly stronger for attending radiologists (Spearman's rho: -0.763, 95% CI -0.7933 to -0.731; p<0.0001). Agreement was poor among reviewers when asked exactly how many protocols could potentially be used to answer the clinical question based on provided history, ICC 0.08, (95% -0.03-0.13)., Conclusion: Although there is still variability in radiologists' approach to protocoling urgent studies, a more comprehensive requisition history narrowed the number of protocols considered., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Rationale and Objectives: Thyroid nodules are common in the population, although the rate of malignancy is relatively low (5%-15%). The purpose of this study was to determine if introducing a modified standardized reporting format and management algorithm (Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System [TI-RADS]) affects radiologist reporting adherence, number of thyroid biopsies, and other measurable outcomes., Materials and Methods: All thyroid biopsies performed over two 6-month periods were evaluated at a tertiary care hospital with Research Ethics Board approval. The first period was before implementation of TI-RADS and the second was several months after implementation of TI-RADS (using a modified version made through a multidisciplinary collaboration). The number of biopsies performed was determined in each of the two periods as well as the percent of positive malignancy, wait times, and rates of non-diagnostic/unsatisfactory and inconclusive biopsies, which included atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) and follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS)., Results: The average number of biopsies performed prior to implementing modified Kwak's TI-RADS was 74 thyroid biopsies per month and the average number of diagnostic ultrasounds was 271. After the introduction of modified Kwak's TI-RADS, the average number of thyroid biopsies decreased to 60 per month (an 18.9% reduction, P < .05), and the number of diagnostic ultrasound increased to 287 per month (a 5.9% increase from 2016 to 2017). The average wait time for a thyroid biopsy decreased from 5 to 3 weeks (P < .05). There was a slight increase in the rate of positive malignancy results (from 15% to 18%), although it was not statistically significant. The rate of non-diagnostic/unsatisfactory and inconclusive results (including AUS and FLUS) remained unchanged (18% AUS/FLUS/15% non-diagnostic/unsatisfactory before and 17% AUS/FLUS/15% non-diagnostic/unsatisfactory after TI-RADS introduction, P > .05)., Conclusions: Introduction of a multidisciplinary-approved standardized reporting system with evidence-based management recommendations led to no statistically significant change in the number of diagnostic ultrasounds but a statistically significant reduction in the number of monthly thyroid biopsies and associated reduction in wait times., (Copyright © 2018 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purposes of this article are to review a variety of pitfalls in liver imaging that can lead to the inaccurate diagnosis of focal hepatic lesions in cirrhosis, to describe the pathophysiologic processes of these pitfalls, and to provide specific clues for achieving the correct diagnoses., Conclusion: Cirrhosis complicates liver imaging. The distortion and replacement of normal liver parenchyma by fibrous and regenerative tissue can change the typical appearance of many benign lesions, causing them to be misinterpreted as malignancy. In addition, the high incidence and prevalence of hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with cirrhosis put radiologists on high alert for any suspicious findings, especially because not all hepatocellular carcinomas have a typical imaging appearance.

Objective: The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CT in the identification of anastomotic leaks., Materials and Methods: This was a study of patients who underwent bowel surgery and a subsequent postoperative CT examination performed specifically for investigating for an anastomotic leak. The study group included patients with surgically confirmed anastomotic leaks (n = 59), and the control group included patients without anastomotic leaks (n = 48) confirmed by either repeat surgery or uneventful clinical follow-up for at least 6 months. Two radiologists and two radiology residents independently reviewed each CT examination for specific CT findings from a set of predetermined imaging predictors. The sensitivity and specificity for each imaging predictor were calculated for each reader, and the interobserver agreement was calculated using the Cohen kappa coefficient. Diagnostic performance was assessed using ROC curve analysis., Results: The most sensitive imaging predictor was intraabdominal free fluid (95.3%). Leakage of intraluminal contrast agent was also a highly specific imaging predictor (96.6%). Substantial interobserver agreement was shown for intraabdominal free gas (κ = 0.76) and leakage of intraluminal contrast agent (κ = 0.76). Overall diagnostic performance in correctly identifying surgically confirmed leaks, as assessed by the area under the ROC curve, ranged from 0.76 to 0.86. Diagnostic performance was higher for all readers when intraluminal contrast agent was used and reached the anastomosis, with the exception of one reader, whose diagnostic performance remained unchanged., Conclusion: Diagnostic performance of CT was highest when an intraluminal contrast agent was used. Meticulous and careful use of an intraluminal contrast agent is therefore important in this patient population.

The computed tomography / magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System (LI-RADS) is a standardized system for diagnostic imaging terminology, technique, interpretation, and reporting in patients with or at risk for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Using diagnostic algorithms and tables, the system assigns to liver observations category codes reflecting the relative probability of HCC or other malignancies. This review article provides an overview of the 2017 version of CT/MRI LI-RADS with a focus on MRI. The main LI-RADS categories and their application will be described. Changes and updates introduced in this version of LI-RADS will be highlighted, including modifications to the diagnostic algorithm and to the optional application of ancillary features. Comparisons to other major diagnostic systems for HCC will be made, emphasizing key similarities, differences, strengths, and limitations. In addition, this review presents the new Treatment Response algorithm, while introducing the concepts of MRI nonviability and viability. Finally, planned future directions for LI-RADS will be outlined., Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1459-1474., (© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

Since its introduction in 2011, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has become an increasingly utilized method for radiologists to categorize lesions for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients at risk (American College of Radiology, www.acr.org/quality-safety/resources/lirads 2016). This overview article presents insight into methods of incorporating LI-RADS into an existing clinical practice, highlighting concrete ways to establish this system as a mainstay in any radiologist's evidence-based armamentarium. We will focus on the importance of standardization to improve the value of our reporting. We will also discuss specific opportunities to favor adoption of LI-RADS including building a community of users composed of radiologists and referring physicians, forming a strategic vision, enlisting a team leader, overcoming barriers to adoption, communicating successes, integrating the system into the departmental culture, and learning from mistakes. The 2017 version of LI-RADS is the most recent update and is based on the most current medical imaging evidence. The details of these updates are described in other articles in this journal's edition. Efforts should be made to increase adherence and to enhance standardized use of LI-RADS internationally. Ultimately, the objective of LI-RADS is to prioritize patient care and optimize medical outcomes.

Chronic liver disease, irrespective of cause, can eventually lead to cirrhosis, which is the primary risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In patients with cirrhosis or appropriate risk factors, HCC can be diagnosed by imaging with high specificity using liver imaging reporting and data system v2017, obviating the need for histologic confirmation. Confident recognition of cirrhosis by conventional imaging alone can be challenging, as radiologists are not always provided with the requisite information to determine if the patient has cirrhosis or other risk factors for HCC. Moreover, cirrhosis-associated abnormalities may impair the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for HCC. This article addresses the diagnosis of cirrhosis by non-invasive imaging and the implications of cirrhosis for imaging interpretation and accuracy.

This article provides a glimpse into the future of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), discussing the immediate and long-term plans for its continuing improvement and expansion. To complement the Core and Essentials components of the latest version of LI-RADS, a comprehensive manual will be released soon, and it will include technical recommendations, management guidance, as well as reporting instructions and templates. In this article, we briefly review the process by which LI-RADS has been developed until now, a process guided by a variable combination of data, expert opinion, and desire for congruency with other diagnostic systems in North America. We then look forward, envisioning that forthcoming updates to LI-RADS will occur regularly every 3 to 5 years, driven by emerging high-quality scientific evidence. We highlight some of the key knowledge and technology gaps that will need to be addressed to enable the needed refinements. We also anticipate future expansions in scope to meet currently unaddressed clinical needs. Finally, we articulate a vision for eventual unification of imaging system for HCC screening and surveillance, diagnosis and staging, and treatment response assessment.

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a reporting system created for the standardized interpretation of liver imaging findings in patients who are at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This system was developed with the cooperative and ongoing efforts of an American College of Radiology-supported committee of diagnostic radiologists with expertise in liver imaging and valuable input from hepatobiliary surgeons, hepatologists, hepatopathologists, and interventional radiologists. In this article, the 2017 version of LI-RADS for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging is reviewed. Specific topics include the appropriate population for application of LI-RADS; technical recommendations for image optimization, including definitions of dynamic enhancement phases; diagnostic and treatment response categories; definitions of major and ancillary imaging features; criteria for distinguishing definite HCC from a malignancy that might be non-HCC; management options following LI-RADS categorization; and reporting. © RSNA, 2017.

Purpose: The study sought to determine if the Quality Initiative Program (QUIP) has become part of the radiology culture at our institution., Methods: After Research Ethics approval, QUIPs from January 2009 to December 2014 were assessed. We evaluated the response rates of radiologists receiving QUIPs to ensure they reviewed them. We performed a survey of radiologists and trainees to gain feedback regarding their perception of QUIPs in February 2014 and in June 2015., Results: Response rates of radiologists receiving a QUIP improved, with 76% response rate in 2014 up from 66% in the first year and 42% in the second year. Based on the 2015 survey including radiologists and trainees, 75% agreed that QUIPs were educational, compared with 67% 16 months earlier. Fifty percent of respondents had changed their overall practice of reporting based on feedback from the QUIP in 2015 compared with 32% in 2014. In both surveys, 100% of respondents indicated that QUIPs have not been used against them for any disciplinary measure (or other negatively perceived action). When asked if there was a perceived decrease in stigma felt when a QUIP was received, 71% agreed or were neutral and 28% disagreed., Conclusions: The QUIP is educational to radiologists and trainees, leading to positive changes in clinical practice. The majority accepts this program but there is still a stigma felt when a QUIP is received, particularly among residents. Nevertheless, we feel that QUIP has been integrated into our radiology culture and, hopefully, imminent transition to commercial quality software will be smooth., (Copyright © 2016 Canadian Association of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical Vignette: A 50-year-old woman presents to the emergency department with increasing abdominal pain. Abdominal computed tomography imaging reveals an expanded inferior vena cava-filling defect that is suspicious for a retroperitoneal sarcoma, possibly a primary leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava. The surgery team discusses the case with the radiologist, and all agree that there are multiple challenges with obtaining a tissue diagnosis and determining resectability. Thus, it is decided that this patient should be discussed at a multidisciplinary case conference. In the present article, we feature a case-based scenario focusing on the role of the radiologist in this type of multidisciplinary team., Competing Interests: We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.

Purpose: To determine the utility of fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient recalled echo (FS-T1W-GRE) MRI to predict visibility of focal liver lesions (FLL) on abdominal ultrasound (US)., Materials and Methods: With IRB approval, between 2010 and 2013, 109 patients (28.4% females, age 66.9±10.9years) with 177 FLL (hepatocellular carcinoma=132, metastases=44, other=1) underwent MRI and prospective, radiologist-performed treatment-planning US (to determine eligibility for US-guided ablation). MRI examinations were reviewed by a blinded radiologist who assessed: a) size and location of FLL, b) presence of hepatic steatosis on dual-echo T1W-GRE, and c) quantitative signal intensity of FLL relative to liver on FS-T1W-GRE. Associations between MR imaging findings and visibility on US were assessed using independent t-tests and the chi-squares test., Results: 69.5% (123/177) FLL were identified with US and 30.5% (54/177) were not visible. Size of FLL on MRI was associated with visibility on US (p<0.0001) with no association between FLL visibility on US and segmental or subcapsular location (p=0.29 and p=0.25, respectively). 20.2% (22/109) patients had hepatic steatosis on MRI, which was not associated with non-visibility of FLL on US (p=0.67). 38.4% (68/177) FLL were isointense to liver on FS-T1W-GRE which was associated with non-visibility on US (p=0.036) particularly in non-steatotic livers (p=0.014)., Conclusion: FLL size and isointensity of FLL to liver parenchyma on FS-T1W-GRE MRI are associated with non-visibility on US, particularly in non-steatotic livers. These results have implications when planning US-guided percutaneous interventions of FLL detected with MRI., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of internal hernia (IH) in patients who have undergone laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and to develop decision tree models to optimize diagnostic accuracy. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective, ethics-approved study of patients who had undergone laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with surgically confirmed IH (n = 76) and without IH (n = 78). Two radiologists independently reviewed each examination for the following previously established CT signs of IH: mesenteric swirl, small-bowel obstruction (SBO), mushroom sign, clustered loops, hurricane eye, small bowel behind the superior mesenteric artery, and right-sided anastomosis. Radiologists also evaluated images for two new signs, superior mesenteric vein (SMV) "beaking" and "criss-cross" of the mesenteric vessels. Overall impressions for diagnosis of IH were recorded. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement were calculated, and multivariate recursive partitioning was performed to evaluate various decision tree models by using the CT signs. Results Accuracy and interobserver agreement regarding the nine CT signs of IH showed considerable variation. The best signs were mesenteric swirl (sensitivity and specificity, 86%-89% and 86%-90%, respectively; κ = 0.74) and SMV beaking (sensitivity and specificity, 80%-88% and 94%-95%, respectively; κ = 0.83). Overall reader impression yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity (96%-99% and 90%-99%, respectively; κ = 0.79). The decision tree model with the highest overall accuracy and sensitivity included mesenteric swirl and SBO, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 154 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 146, 161), sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 87%, 99%), and specificity of 87% (95% CI: 75%, 93%). The decision tree with the highest specificity included SMV beaking and SBO, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 105 (95% CI: 101, 109), sensitivity of 90% (95% CI: 79%, 95%), and specificity of 92% (95% CI: 83%, 97%). Conclusion The decision tree with the highest accuracy and sensitivity for diagnosis of IH included mesenteric swirl and SBO, the model with the highest specificity included SMV beaking and SBO, and the remaining signs showed lower accuracy and/or poor to fair interobserver agreement. Overall reader impression yielded the highest accuracy for diagnosis of IH, likely because alternate diagnoses not incorporated in the models were considered. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate patterns of local tumor progression (LTP) after radiofrequency ablation (RF ablation) of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) and to highlight the percentage of LTP not attributable to lesion size or RF ablation procedure-related factors (heat sink or insufficient ablation margin)., Methods: CRCLM treated by RF ablation at a single tertiary care center from 2004-2012, with a minimum of six months of postprocedure follow-up, were included in this retrospective study. LTP morphology was classified as focal nodular (<90° of ablation margin), circumferential (>270°), or crescentic (90°-270°). Initial metastasis size, minimum ablation margin size, morphology of LTP, presence of a heat sink, and time to progression were recorded independently by two radiologists., Results: Thirty-two of 127 RF ablation treated metastases (25%) with a mean size of 23 mm (standard deviation 12 mm) exhibited LTP. Fifteen of 32 LTPs (47%) were classified as focal nodular, with seven having no procedure-related factor to explain recurrence. Ten of 32 LTPs (31%) were circumferential, with four having no procedure-related factor to explain recurrence. Seven of 32 LTPs (22%) were crescentic, with two having no procedure-related factor to explain recurrence. Of the 13 lesions without any obvious procedure-related reason for LTP, six (46%) were <3 cm in size., Conclusion: Although LTP in RF ablation treated CRCLM can often be explained by procedure-related factors or size of the lesion, in this study up to six (5%) of the CRCLM we treated showed LTP without any reasonable cause., Competing Interests: disclosure The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Positive oral contrast agents, including barium suspensions and water-soluble iodinated solutions, have traditionally been used in conjunction with the CT evaluation of patients with abdominal and pelvic pain. Due to continued advancements in CT technology, and due to increasing obesity and correspondingly a general increase in the intra-abdominal and intra-pelvic fat separating bowel loops in North American patients and in patients in other parts of the world over the past few decades, the ability of radiologists to accurately evaluate the cause of acute symptoms has substantially improved. Recent research and evolving imaging society guidelines/systematic reviews increasingly support performing CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis without the need for positive oral contrast in these types of adult patient populations, in most clinical situations. Increased patient throughput, patient preference, patient safety, and most importantly, retention of high diagnostic accuracy, are reasons for this recent change in practice to routinely omit the use of enteric contrast agents for the majority of patients presenting with acute abdominal and pelvic pain whom are undergoing emergency CT.

Severe renal injuries are usually associated with multisystem injuries, may require interventional radiology to control hemorrhage and improve the chances for renal salvage, and are more likely to fail nonoperative management. However, most renal injuries are mild in severity and successfully managed conservatively. The AAST classification is the most widely used system to describe renal injuries and carries management and prognostic implications. CT with intravenous contrast is the imaging test of choice to assess for renal injuries. Contrast extravasation indicating active bleeding should be mentioned as its presence is predictive for failure of nonoperative management. Radiologists play a critical role in identifying renal injuries and should make every effort to describe renal injuries according to the AAST grading scheme to better inform the surgeon's management decisions.

Ablative treatment methods have emerged as safe and effective therapies for patients with primary and secondary liver tumors who are not surgical candidates at the time of diagnosis. This article reviews the current literature and describes the techniques, complications and results for radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, cryoablation, and irreversible electroporation.

Multiple traumatic and non-traumatic adrenal emergencies are occasionally encountered during the cross-sectional imaging of emergency department patients. Traumatic adrenal hematomas are markers of severe polytrauma, and can be easily overlooked due to multiple concomitant injuries. Patients with non-traumatic adrenal emergencies usually present to an emergency department with a non-specific clinical picture. The detection and management of adrenal emergencies is based on cross-sectional imaging. Adrenal hemorrhage, adrenal infection, or rupture of adrenal neoplasm require immediate detection to avoid dire consequences. More often however, adrenal emergencies are detected incidentally in patients being investigated for non-specific acute abdominal pain. A high index of suspicion is required for the establishment of timely diagnosis and to avert potentially life-threatening complications. We describe cross-sectional imaging findings in patients with traumatic and non-traumatic adrenal hemorrhage, adrenal infarctions, adrenal infections, and complications of adrenal masses.