European Society Of Gastrointestinal And Abdominal Radiology Research Articles

MRI for nodal restaging after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer with histopathologic comparison

BackgroundAfter neoadjuvant therapy, most of the lymph nodes (LNs) will shrink and disappear in patients with rectal cancer. However, LNs that are still detectable on MRI carry a risk of metastasis. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) criterion (short-axis diameter ≥ 5 mm) in diagnosing malignant LNs in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy, and whether nodal morphological characteristics (including shape, border, signal homogeneity, and enhancement homogeneity) could improve the diagnostic efficiency for LNs ≥ 5 mm.MethodsThis retrospective study included 90 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent surgery after neoadjuvant therapy and performed preoperative MRI. Two radiologists independently measured the short-axis diameter of LNs and evaluated the morphological characteristics of LNs ≥ 5 mm in consensus. With a per node comparison with histopathology as the reference standard, a ROC curve was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the size criterion. For categorical variables, either a χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was used.ResultsA total of 298 LNs were evaluated. The AUC for nodal size in determining nodal status was 0.81. With a size cutoff value of 5 mm, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 65.9%, 87.0%, 46.8%, 93.6% and 83.9%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in any of the morphological characteristics between benign and malignant LNs ≥ 5 mm (all P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe ESGAR criterion demonstrated moderate diagnostic performance in identifying malignant LNs in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. It was effective in determining the status of LNs < 5 mm but not for LNs ≥ 5 mm, and the diagnostic efficiency could not be improved by considering nodal morphological characteristics.

OGBN P11 Gallbladder polyps: an audit of management in an NHS trust

Abstract Background Gallbladder polyps are elevations in the gallbladder wall which project into the lumen. These can be either true polyps or “pseudopolyps” (such as cholesterol or inflammatory deposits or focal adenomyomatosis). Polyp prevalence has been estimated as high as 9.5% in some studies, of which 70% may be pseudopolyps. A small minority of true polyps may display malignant potential. Gallbladder malignancy is aggressive, especially when diagnosed at later stages of disease with poor treatment options and survival outcomes. However, Stage I disease has excellent 5 year survival rates, nearing 100%. Early identification of patients at risk of gallbladder malignancy is highly important and may detect curable disease. Joint guidelines between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery – European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) have outlined best practice in regards to management of gallbladder polyps. This audit compared the current practice in a NHS healthcare trust against these guidelines in order to develop trust-wide consensus and guidelines for future management. Methods A PACS based radiology search was conducted, identifying all patients who underwent an ultrasound between 10th December 2020 and 10th December 2021, whose imaging report used the term “gallbladder polyp(s)” within a hospital trust. Patients without a diagnosis of gallbladder polyp were excluded from the audit. Historical patient records were accessed via the trust-based online patient database (Clinical Portal). Data were collected and analysed using Microsoft excel. Patient management was compared against the following ESGAR/EAES/EFISDS/ESGE guidelines: Results A total of fifty six patients fit the inclusion criteria, with an age range of 8 to 96 years. The majority were female (63%). Polyp size ranged from &amp;lt;2mm to 14mm. Patients were predominantly managed by Upper GI surgery, gastroenterology and general practice with the Radiology department performing and reporting ultrasounds and advising management or follow up. Results showed that 86% of patients were appropriately offered surgery for polyps ≥ 10mm. However, 40% of patients with polyps &amp;gt;5mm with risk factors, were not offered cholecystectomy and 44% of those without risk factors were not offered appropriate follow up. The majority of patients with polyps ≤ 5mm with risk factors were not offered ultrasound surveillance. All patients without risk factors with polyps ≤ 5mm were appropriately managed. Conclusions Key findings suggest discrepancies in the management of patients with gallbladder polyps in a NHS Trust. In particular, patients with risk factors and polyps between 6–9mm were not always identified as requiring operative management. Likewise, over half of those without risk factors were not offered surveillance imaging. Poor management and lack of follow up may put patients at risk. The results of this audit demonstrate the need for unified local or national guidelines concerning management of gallbladder polyps and consensus across multiple disciplines.

Imaging standardisation in metastatic colorectal cancer: A joint EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR expert consensus recommendation

BackgroundTreatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on imaging to evaluate the tumour burden. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors provide a framework on reporting and interpretation of imaging findings yet offer no guidance on a standardised imaging protocol tailored to patients with mCRC. Imaging protocol heterogeneity remains a challenge for the reproducibility of conventional imaging end-points and is an obstacle for research on novel imaging end-points. Patients and methodsAcknowledging the recently highlighted potential of radiomics and artificial intelligence tools as decision support for patient care in mCRC, a multidisciplinary, international and expert panel of imaging specialists was formed to find consensus on mCRC imaging protocols using the Delphi method. ResultsUnder the guidance of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging and Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Groups, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), the EORTC-ESOI-ESGAR core imaging protocol was identified. ConclusionThis consensus protocol attempts to promote standardisation and to diminish variations in patient preparation, scan acquisition and scan reconstruction. We anticipate that this standardisation will increase reproducibility of radiomics and artificial intelligence studies and serve as a catalyst for future research on imaging end-points. For ongoing and future mCRC trials, we encourage principal investigators to support the dissemination of these imaging standards across recruiting centres.

ESCP President's report.

ESCP President's report.

Association of Accuracy, Conclusions, and Reporting Completeness With Acceptance by Radiology Conferences and Journals.

Preferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions. To evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals. Meta-research. Abstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included. Primary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted. Multivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05. A total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR=0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI=0.70-1.35), conclusion positivity (OR=1.21 for positive conclusions; CI=0.75-1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR=0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI=0.82-1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR=0.45; CI=0.24-0.86), while YI (OR=0.85; CI=0.56-1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR=1.06; CI=0.87-1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts. Diagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals. 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

P-O03 The Management of Gallbladder Polyps at a Single Trust: Are we compliant with European Guidelines?

Abstract Background Gallbladder polyps affect approximately 5% of the global population, with rates highest in those of Indian descent. 10% of polyps will have malignant potential based on their size or rapid growth rate, which are associated with a poor 5-year survival once advanced of less than 25%. As gallbladder polyps are common but gallbladder cancer is rare, it is a diagnostic challenge to determine which polyps are likely to be malignant. Adherence to guidelines regarding radiological follow up and definitive treatment, in the form of a cholecystectomy, is therefore vital. Methods Retrospective data collection and analysis was completed for all patients who had a biliary ultrasound between December 2013 and December 2016 to enable 5-year follow up, and a snapshot of 47 patients selected at random. Patients having a gallbladder “polyp” documented on their scan report were eligible for inclusion and adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) guidelines was assessed. Results Within the cohort there was a mean age of 56 years, with a male:female ratio of 17:30. All patients included were Caucasian, with 41 reporting “biliary symptoms” as the indication for the primary ultrasound. 26 patients were not followed up in adherence to guidelines, with 50% due to the sonographer reporting follow-up was not indicated on initial scan, 5 having unchanged polyp size and 2 discharged by the responsible consultant. Of the 21 who were followed up according to guidelines, 20 had a cholecystectomy within 5years, with none of these patients having cancer detected on histology. Conclusions Over 50% of patients within our cohort were not followed up according to the ESGAR guidelines. Although no patients in the study were found to have malignant polyps, the sample size is relatively small and limited to low-risk groups. We aim to expand this audit both locally and regionally, raise awareness of the importance of surveillance across the multi-disciplinary team, and produce local guidance for the outpatient setting.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

1: ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7: ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 - 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.

1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

A Systematic Review of Technical Parameters for MR of the Small Bowel in non-IBD Conditions over the Last Ten Years

Technical guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the small bowel (SB) in the setting of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) were detailed in a 2017 consensus issued by European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and European Society of Pediatric Radiology (ESPR); however, MRI for non-IBD conditions was not addressed. Hence, we performed a systematic review collecting researches on SB MRI for non-IBDs. The literatures were then divided into morphologic group and functional group. Information about the MRI techniques, gastrointestinal preparation, and details of cine-MRI protocols was extracted. We found that a 1.5 T MRI system, prone positioning, and MR enterography were frequently utilized in clinical practice. Gadolinium contrast sequences were routinely implemented, while diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was much less performed. The gastrointestinal preparation varied throughout the studies. No uniform protocols for cine imaging could be established. SB MRI examinations for non-IBDs are far from standardized, especially for functional studies. Recommendations for standard parameters in cine-MRI sequences are difficult to make due to lack of evidentiary support. MRI investigations in non-IBD conditions are needed and the standardization of non-IBD imaging in clinical practice is required.

Correction to: Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting.

The article Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting, written by [§§§ AuthorNames §§§].

Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting

ObjectivesTo update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer.MethodsFourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus).ResultsConsensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template.ConclusionsThese updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI.Key Points• These guidelines present recommendations for staging and reporting of rectal cancer.• The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 pelvic imaging experts.• Consensus was reached by the experts for 92 % of the 246 items discussed.• Practical guidelines for nodal staging are proposed.• A structured reporting template is presented.

An excerpt of Joint guidelines between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery - European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)：management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps（2017）

An excerpt of Joint guidelines between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery - European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)：management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps（2017）

Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps

ObjectivesThe management of incidentally detected gallbladder polyps on radiological examinations is contentious. The incidental radiological finding of a gallbladder polyp can therefore be problematic for the radiologist and the clinician who referred the patient for the radiological examination. To address this a joint guideline was created by the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery – European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE).MethodsA targeted literature search was performed and consensus guidelines were created using a series of Delphi questionnaires and a seven-point Likert scale.ResultsA total of three Delphi rounds were performed. Consensus regarding which patients should have cholecystectomy, which patients should have ultrasound follow-up and the nature and duration of that follow-up was established. The full recommendations as well as a summary algorithm are provided.ConclusionsThese expert consensus recommendations can be used as guidance when a gallbladder polyp is encountered in clinical practice.Key Points• Management of gallbladder polyps is contentious• Cholecystectomy is recommended for gallbladder polyps >10 mm• Management of polyps <10 mm depends on patient and polyp characteristics• Further research is required to determine optimal management of gallbladder polyps

The first joint ESGAR/ ESPR consensus statement on the technical performance of cross-sectional small bowel and colonic imaging

ObjectivesTo develop guidelines describing a standardised approach to patient preparation and acquisition protocols for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) of the small bowel and colon, with an emphasis on imaging inflammatory bowel disease.MethodsAn expert consensus committee of 13 members from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) undertook a six-stage modified Delphi process, including a detailed literature review, to create a series of consensus statements concerning patient preparation, imaging hardware and image acquisition protocols.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-seven statements were scored for agreement by the panel of which 129 statements (82 %) achieved immediate consensus with a further 19 (12 %) achieving consensus after appropriate modification. Nine (6 %) statements were rejected as consensus could not be reached.ConclusionsThese expert consensus recommendations can be used to help guide cross-sectional radiological practice for imaging the small bowel and colon.Key points• Cross-sectional imaging is increasingly used to evaluate the bowel• Image quality is paramount to achieving high diagnostic accuracy• Guidelines concerning patient preparation and image acquisition protocols are provided

Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction - joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group

ObjectiveTo develop recommendations that can be used as guidance for standardized approach regarding indications, patient preparation, sequences acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis and grading of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD).MethodsThe technique included critical literature between 1993 and 2013 and expert consensus about MRI protocols by the pelvic floor-imaging working group of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) from one Egyptian and seven European institutions. Data collection and analysis were achieved in 5 consecutive steps. Eighty-two items were scored to be eligible for further analysis and scaling. Agreement of at least 80 % was defined as consensus finding.ResultsConsensus was reached for 88 % of 82 items. Recommended reporting template should include two main sections for measurements and grading. The pubococcygeal line (PCL) is recommended as the reference line to measure pelvic organ prolapse. The recommended grading scheme is the “Rule of three” for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), while a rectocele and ARJ descent each has its specific grading system.ConclusionThis literature review and expert consensus recommendations can be used as guidance for MR imaging and reporting of PFD.Key points• These recommendations highlight the most important prerequisites to obtain a diagnostic PFD-MRI.• Static, dynamic and evacuation sequences should be generally performed for PFD evaluation.• The recommendations were constructed through consensus among 13 radiologists from 8 institutions.

Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. CRC screening by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) has been shown to reduce CRC mortality [3, 4], and is currently used in several European countries. Colonoscopy is highly effective for detecting advanced neoplasia, and endoscopic polypectomy reduces subsequent CRC-specific incidence and mortality [5]. In Europe, colonoscopy is mainly used to investigate FOBT-positive or symptomatic patients, or as a preventive strategy in those with increased CRC risk [6]. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive imaging technique that is highly accurate for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomatous polyps. The technique is standardized [7], and CTC is more easily performed than barium enema. Evidence-based data suggest that CTC is the natural replacement for barium enema and a complementary rather than an alternative examination to colonoscopy. However, the clinical scenarios for which CTC is indicated remain unclear. To address this uncertainty – 20 years after the first presentation of CTC at a radiological meeting [8] – the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) decided to produce a common guideline regarding indications for CTC in clinical practice. Technical and quality issues of CTC have been deliberately excluded from this work as these have already been discussed separately [7].

Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

CT Colonography: A Guide for Clinical PracticeThomasM, WolfgangS. Contributions from Anno Grser. Thieme, Stuttgart and New York, 2013; 202. 535 colour and B&amp;W illustrations, ISBN 078‐3‐13‐147261‐8. Recommended retail price $AUS 216.

As the title suggests the aim of this book is to provide a practical guide to all aspects of CT colonography. This has been achieved by dividing the topic up into clearly defined logical chapters. These are: indications/contraindications, examination, image interpretation, findings, how to generate a useful report, screening and training. The layout with high quality images, text boxes and highlighted key points makes for very easy reading and reference. This is a book that is easy to read for a quick 5 min or to sit down for a long educational session. Computerised tomography (CT) colonography has been a rapidly evolving subject over the last few years due to a combination of clinical need and technological advances. The technique has moved from primarily a research tool to a commonly accepted examination in the clinical diagnostic armoury. Its position in the diagnostic hierarchy for colonic disorders is continuing to evolve. Colorectal carcinoma is the second most common malignancy in the Western world and the third worldwide. Colorectal cancer is an optimal disease for screening with the majority of cases thought to arise from precancerous polyps that have a long latency time, in the order of 5–10 years before becoming malignant. Removal of the polyp removes the risk from that lesion. A more complete discussion is found in the foreword, by the eminent gastrointestinal radiologist Professor Richard M. Gore, which sets the tone for this publication. Computerised tomography colonography currently performed in Australia is almost exclusively for diagnostic purposes and usually follows a failed optical colonoscopy. Worldwide trends and experience suggests this will change in future. The Authors A/Professor Mangland and Professor Schima along with contributing editor, A/Professor Grasser, have a wide experience in this field with numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals. As the title suggests, the aim of this book is to provide a practical guide to all aspects of CT colonography. This has been achieved by dividing the topic up into clearly defined logical chapters. These are: indications/contraindications, examination, image interpretation, findings, how to generate a useful report, screening and training. The layout with high-quality images, text boxes and highlighted key points makes for very easy reading and reference. This is a book that is easy to read for a quick 5 minutes or to sit down for a long educational session. The use of headings for each topic within a chapter makes for a quick reference guide without needing to plough through pages in order to obtain the required relevant information. A bibliography is provided at the end of each chapter, these are extensive and current in directing the reader to appropriate peer-reviewed literature. Throughout the book, reference is made to the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus statement on CT colonography produced in 2012. This is the latest consensus of leading European opinion leaders on quality standards in CT colonography. The examination technique chapter sets out the range of different preparations, faecal tagging, antispasmodics, methods of colonic distension and scanning protocols. Each method is clearly discussed, with dot point protocols produced in ‘how to do it’ text boxes. The reader would be able to easily make a choice of techniques to suit their environment and patient populations. These techniques are comprehensively described with the advantages and disadvantages discussed where relevant. For the reporting clinicians, the chapters on image interpretation and findings at CT colonoscopy are comprehensive and well set out in line with leading texts in this area. The practical guide element on how to produce a useful report, the use of C-RADS classification system and how to train in CT colonoscopy are innovative and instructive. The guide on how to generate a useful report is a useful tool for those clinicians already reporting CT colonography who wish to critically examine their own reporting techniques. This book achieves its aims and much more being as authoritative on the topic as is practically possible. It is eminently suitable for radiographers and clinicians wishing to learn the technique of CT colonography. For the clinician wishing to report CT colonography training is a prerequisite, with many countries requiring accreditation and ongoing competency. This book contains all the relevant information to serve as a standard training text. In addition, it is an easily referenced text for ongoing education. For those centres performing CT colonography this book could serve as the basis for a 360° review of the department's current practices with a view to ensuring the highest quality studies and reports are produced. This is particularly relevant in environments where limited numbers of examinations are performed.

Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients: recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting

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. 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. 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. These expert consensus recommendations can be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. • 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 second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography

ObjectiveTo update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR).Material and methodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.Key Points• Computed tomographic colonography is the optimal radiological method of assessing the colon • This article reviews ESGAR quality standards for CT colonography • This article is aimed to provide CT-colonography guidelines for practising radiologists • The recommendations should help radiologists who are starting/updating their CTC services