Allen, Brian C.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high healthcare utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including computed tomography angiography, catheter angiography, computed tomography enterography, magnetic resonance enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided.

432 Background: In clinical trials and clinical practice, tumor response assessment with computed tomography (CT) defines critical end points in patients with metastatic disease treated with systemic agents. Methods to reduce errors and improve efficiency in tumor response assessment could improve patient care. Methods: Eleven readers from 10 different institutions independently categorized tumor response according to three different therapeutic response criteria using paired baseline and initial post-therapy CT studies from 20 randomly selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib as part of a completed phase III multi-institutional study. Images were evaluated with a manual tumor response evaluation method (standard-of-care) and with computer-assisted response evaluation (CARE) that included stepwise guidance, interactive error-identification and correction methods, automated tumor metric extraction, calculations, response categorization, and data/image archival. A cross-over design, patient randomization, and two-week washout period were used to reduce recall bias. Comparative effectiveness metrics included error rate and mean patient evaluation time. Results: The standard-of-care method was on average associated with one or more errors in 30.5% (6.1/20) of patients while CARE had a 0.0% (0.0/20) error rate (p<0.001). The most common errors were related to data transfer and arithmetic calculation. In patients with errors, the median number of error types was 1 (range 1-3). Mean patient evaluation time with CARE was twice as fast as the standard-of-care method (6.4 vs. 13.1 minutes, p<0.001). Conclusions: Computer-assisted tumor response evaluation reduced errors and time of evaluation, indicating better overall effectiveness than manual tumor response evaluation methods that are the current standard-of-care.