Quality of same-day CT colonography following incomplete optical colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Same-day CT colonography (CTC) following incomplete optical colonoscopy allows patients to avoid both a delayed diagnosis and the need for repeat bowel preparation. The aim of our study is to establish the diagnostic quality of same-day CT colonography following an incomplete optical colonoscopy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing same-day CT colonography following an incomplete colonoscopy at our center between July 2015 and December 2017 (N = 245). We divided the large bowel into thirteen subsegments in each patient. Using a semiquantitative scoring system, the quality of bowel preparation, adequacy of fecal tagging, and luminal distension were assessed in each subsegment on all views performed. A combined score for each subsection was obtained. RESULTS: Ninety-nine percent of studies did not require a repeat CTC or optical colonoscopy. Median values for bowel preparation and fecal tagging were satisfactory across the bowel segments for the cohort and luminal distension was acceptable in all but three patients. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day CTC should be considered in centers with capacity, following an incomplete optical colonoscopy. Same-day completion CTCs are of high diagnostic quality and this approach allows patients to avoid repeat bowel cleansing or a delayed diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Same-day CT colonography is a high-quality examination that can be performed following incomplete optical colonoscopy. • Same-day CT colonography should be considered for patients with incomplete optical colonoscopy in centers with the capacity to offer this service. • Same-day CTC can avoid a delay in diagnosis and avoids repeat bowel preparation.

Incidence of clinically significant perforation at low dose non-contrast CT and its value prior to same day CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: Routine low dose non-contrast CT of the abdomen and pelvis has been suggested prior to same day completion CT colonography (CTC) to assess for occult perforation at preceding incomplete colonoscopy, before further gaseous insufflation at CTC. The aim of our study is to examine the incidence of clinically significant perforation at low dose CT. We also examine the benefits of low dose pre-scan in assessing adequacy of bowel preparation and identifying any other relevant contraindications to CT colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all low dose non-contrast CTs performed following failed colonoscopies over a 4-year period (n = 392). We also assessed the adequacy of bowel preparation on a scale of 1-5, in order of increasingly adequate preparation. Incidentally noted bowel pathology and contraindications to CT colonography were also recorded. RESULTS: No perforation was identified either prospectively or in the course of our retrospective review. However, 15 patients (3.8%) were found to have potential contraindications to CT colonography, including: acute diverticulitis, acute colitis, and poor bowel preparation. Overall, the bowel preparation was felt to be adequate (≥ 3) in 86% percent of patients. Two patients (0.5%) identified prospectively had their CT colonography postponed due to poor bowel preparation.

Correction to: Incidence of clinically significant perforation at low dose non­contrast CT and its value prior to same day CT colonography following incomplete colonoscopy.

The original version of this article has an error in the order of authors name. The order of author names should read as "Aileen O'Shea, Timothy Murray, Eavan Thornton, Michael J. Lee and Martina M. Morrin" in the authors group.

Imaging features of Benign Perianal lesions.

Magnetic resonance imaging provides detailed visualisation, identification and extent assessment of many anal disorders. While many studies are performed in the evaluation of malignant processes such as anorectal carcinoma, the primary focus of this pictorial review is benign lesions, which involve the anal canal and perianal spaces. This pictorial review will illustrate the MRI appearances of a variety of benign conditions, which predominantly affect the anal canal, including abscess, fistulae, lipomas, developmental cysts and inflammatory conditions. MRI aids in the identification and characterisation of these abnormalities, of coexisting complications and differentiation from other perineal abnormalities. This pictorial review highlights the spectrum of non-malignant processes involving the perianal region.

CT Imaging Findings after Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Liver Tumors.

Purpose. To study radiological response to stereotactic radiotherapy for focal liver tumors. Materials and Methods. In this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant study CTs of 68 consecutive patients who underwent stereotactic radiotherapy for liver tumors between 01/2006 and 01/2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Two independent reviewers evaluated lesion volume and enhancement pattern of the lesion and of juxtaposed liver parenchyma. Results. 36 subjects with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 25 with liver metastases, and seven with cholangiocarcinoma (CCC) were included in study. Mean follow-up time was 5.6 ± 7.1 months for HCC, 6.4 ± 5.1 months for metastases, and 10.1 ± 4.8 months for the CCC. Complete response was seen in 4/36 (11.1%) HCCs and 1/25 (4%) metastases. Partial response (>30% decrease in long diameter) was seen in 25/36 (69%) HCCs, 14/25 (58%) metastases, and 7/7 (100%) of CCCs. Partial response followed by local recurrence (>20% increase in long diameter from nadir) occurred in 2/36 (6%) HCCs and 4/25 (17%) metastases. Liver parenchyma adjacent to the lesion demonstrated a prominent halo of delayed enhancement in 27/36 (78%) of HCCs, 19/21 (91%) of metastases, and 7/7 (100%) of CCCs. Conclusion. Sustainable radiological partial response to stereotactic radiotherapy is most frequent outcome seen in liver lesions. Prominent halo of delayed enhancement of the adjacent liver is frequent finding.

Decade of molecular targeted therapy: abdominal manifestations of drug toxicities--what radiologists should know.

OBJECTIVE: Novel drugs targeting molecular pathways involved in tumor development have revolutionized cancer treatment. Radiologists often focus on therapeutic response when evaluating cancer patients and may miss important signs of drug toxicity. This article familiarizes radiologists with the complications of molecular targeted agents in abdominal solid organs, enabling early identification and appropriate intervention and thus reducing patient morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of the common abdominal toxicities--including hepatitis, cholecystitis, pancreatitis, fluid retention, and infection--is crucial for early diagnosis, which may spare patients devastating complications or the need for surgery.

Application of failure mode and effect analysis in a radiology department.

With increasing deployment, complexity, and sophistication of equipment and related processes within the clinical imaging environment, system failures are more likely to occur. These failures may have varying effects on the patient, ranging from no harm to devastating harm. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a tool that permits the proactive identification of possible failures in complex processes and provides a basis for continuous improvement. This overview of the basic principles and methodology of FMEA provides an explanation of how FMEA can be applied to clinical operations in a radiology department to reduce, predict, or prevent errors. The six sequential steps in the FMEA process are explained, and clinical magnetic resonance imaging services are used as an example for which FMEA is particularly applicable. A modified version of traditional FMEA called Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, which was introduced by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for Patient Safety, is briefly reviewed. In conclusion, FMEA is an effective and reliable method to proactively examine complex processes in the radiology department. FMEA can be used to highlight the high-risk subprocesses and allows these to be targeted to minimize the future occurrence of failures, thus improving patient safety and streamlining the efficiency of the radiology department.

Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice.

The Joint Commission requires development of comprehensive error detection systems that incorporate root cause analyses for all sentinel events. To prevent medical errors from occurring, there is a need for a readily available and easy-to-implement system for detecting, classifying, and managing mistakes. The wide spectrum of interrelated contributing factors makes the classification of errors difficult. Contributors to and causes of radiologic errors can be classified under latent and active failures. Latent failures include technical and system-related failures, with a radiology-specific subgroup of communication failures that includes documentation, inaccurate or incomplete information, and communication loop failures. Active failures may be ascribed to human failures (more specifically failure of execution of a task, inadequate planning, or behavior-related failures), patient-based failures, and external failures. Classification of an error should also include the impact of the error on the patient, staff, other customers, and radiology practice. Further considerations should include nonmedical impact of the error, including legal, social, and economic effects on both the patient and the system. Rather than focusing the investigation on blaming individuals for active failures, the primary effort should be to discover latent system failures that can be remedied at a departmental level. Such an error classification system will decrease the likelihood of future errors and diminish their adverse impact.

Quality initiatives: strategies for anticipating and reducing complications and treatment failures in hepatic radiofrequency ablation.

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation is one of several local treatment strategies that can be used for the destruction of a variety of primary and secondary liver tumors. As experience with RF ablation grows, it becomes increasingly evident that successful ablation requires meticulous technique. In addition, knowledge of potential complications is critical for both the interventionalist and the radiologist, whose postablation interpretation can facilitate identification of complications and treatment failures. Hepatic RF ablation offers significant advantages in that it is less invasive than surgery and carries a low risk of major complications. Successful prevention of complications and treatment failures begins at initial consultation and continues with preablation evaluation of specific patient factors such as coagulation profiles, use of medications, and risk factors for infection. Other predisposing factors include background liver cirrhosis, prior hepatectomy, and portal hypertension. During ablation, careful attention must be given to tumor size, number, and location. For large or multiple ablations, separate ablation sessions can help reduce the prevalence of postablation syndrome, and clustered electrodes and multiple overlapping treatment zones may be used to reduce the risk of treatment failure. It is critical to reevaluate tumors during ablation to determine the best approach and to compensate for changes in size and relative location due to patient positioning. With use of these strategies, hepatic RF ablation can be performed with greater safety, better patient tolerance, and a reduced risk of complications and treatment failures.

Current status of MR colonography.

The search for an acceptable colorectal cancer screening examination has led to the development of virtual colonoscopy, which includes both computed tomographic (CT) colonography and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography. As indicated by the much larger number of published studies on CT colonography than on MR colonography, multidetector CT appears to be more suitable for colorectal screening than does MR colonography, in part reflecting the ease and speed of performing CT, as well as the increased spatial resolution, decreased cost, and wider availability of CT colonography. The main advantage of MR colonography over CT colonography is that it does not use ionizing radiation, which has important implications for colorectal cancer screening. The use of dark-lumen MR colonography to screen patients for colorectal cancer as well as other abdominopelvic disease could make it more attractive than CT. With the integration of 3.0-T MR colonography, fecal tagging, and parallel imaging into research and clinical settings, new MR colonography protocols must be optimized. Future MR colonography research should address issues such as image characteristics, presence of artifacts, management of specific absorption rate, and hardware-related modifications.