Heiken, Jay P.

Abstract Objectives: Radiologist participation in multidisciplinary tumor board can be time-consuming and demanding, requiring substantial preparation. Anecdotally radiologist participation is felt to help identify discrepancies in previous interpretations; however, there are limited data assessing the actual impact of their tumor board review on patient management. This prospective study aims to evaluate how the reinterpretation of outside imaging and review at hepatobiliary tumor board (HBTB) affects the diagnosis and management of patients with hepatobiliary neoplasms. Methods: This prospective analysis included all patients presented at the weekly HBTB between 6/13/2023 - 6/25/2024. One radiologist reviewed the available reports of outside imaging, the local reinterpretation of outside imaging, the updated local imaging, and documented conclusions from discussion of the case at HBTB. HBTB included 4 radiologists who had reviewed each case. Discrepancies (presence/absence, number, and reasons for) were recorded. When discrepancies occurred, the impact on patient management (5-point Likert scale) was determined by two of the radiologists present at the HBTB in consensus, with input from clinicians if needed. A six-month follow-up was performed to confirm suspected diagnoses. Results: 208 cases (128 males, 104 chronic liver disease patients) were presented at HBTB. Disagreements in the detection or characterization of lesions were found in 59/208 (28.4%) of cases. A change in management occurred in 38/59 (64.6%) of these discrepant cases. In cases with recorded discrepancies in which follow-up confirmation was available, the final interpretation was confirmed in 34/41 (82.9%) of cases. Conclusion: Our study found a discrepant interpretation in nearly one-third of cases presented at a weekly HBTB and a resultant change in management in 65% of those cases. These findings highlight the importance of reinterpretation of prior imaging studies and the presence of radiologists at HBTB to guide optimal patient management.

Background Due to their easy accessibility, CT scans have been increasingly used for investigation of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Purpose To estimate the performance of a dual-phase, dual-energy (DE) GI bleed CT protocol in patients with overt GI bleeding in clinical practice and examine the added value of portal phase and DE images. Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with GI bleeding underwent a two-phase DE GI bleed CT protocol. Two gastroenterologists established the reference standard. Performance was estimated using clinical CT reports. Three GI radiologists rated confidence in GI bleeding in a subset of 62 examinations, evaluating first mixed kV arterial images, then after examining additional portal venous phase images, and finally after additional DE images (virtual non-contrast and virtual monoenergetic 50 keV images). Results 52 of 176 patients (29.5%) had GI bleeding by the reference standard. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the CT GI bleed protocol for detecting GI bleeding were 65.4%, 89.5%, 72.3%, and 86.0%, respectively. In patients with GI bleeding, diagnostic confidence of readers increased after adding portal phase images to arterial phase images ( p = 0.002), without additional benefit from dual energy images. In patients without GI bleeding, confidence in luminal extravasation appropriately decreased after adding portal phase, and subsequently DE images ( p = 0.006, p = 0.018). Conclusion A two-phase DE GI bleed CT protocol had high specificity and negative predictive value in clinical practice. Portal venous phase images improved diagnostic confidence in comparison to arterial phase images alone. Dual-energy images further improved radiologist confidence in the absence of bleeding.

Use of gadoxetate disodium, a hepatobiliary gadolinium‐based agent, in patients with chronic parenchymal liver disease offers the advantage of improved sensitivity for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Imaging features of liver observations on gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI may also serve as biomarkers of recurrence‐free and overall survival following definitive treatment of HCC. A number of technical and interpretative pitfalls specific to gadoxetate exist, however, and needs to be recognized when protocoling and interpreting MRI exams with this agent. This article reviews the advantages and pitfalls of gadoxetate use in patients at risk for HCC, and the potential impact on Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI‐RADS) imaging feature assessment and categorization.Level of Evidence: 5Technical Efficacy Stage: 2J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1236–1252.