Torsten Kucharzik1, Jeroen Tielbeek2, Dan Carter3, Stuart A Taylor4, Damian Tolan5, Rune Wilkens6, Robert V Bryant7, Christine Hoeffel8, Isabelle De Kock9, Christian Maaser10, Giovanni Maconi11, Kerri Novak12, Søren R Rafaelsen13, Martina Scharitzer14, Antonino Spinelli15,16, Jordi Rimola17. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Klinikum Lüneburg, University of Hamburg, Bögelstr. 1, 21339 Lüneburg, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Boerhaavelaan 22, Haarlem, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hasomher, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK. 5. Radiology Department, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, UK. 6. Gastrounit, Division of Medicine, Hvidovre University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Copenhagen Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Children, Adolescents and Adults, University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia. 8. Department of Abdominal Radiology, CHU Reims and CRESTIC, URCA, 51100 Reims, France. 9. Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 10. Outpatient Department of Gastroenterology, Department of Geriatrics, Klinikum Lüneburg, University of Hamburg, Bögelstr. 1, 21339 Lüneburg, Germany. 11. Gastroenterology Unit, 'Luigi Sacco' University Hospital, Milan, Italy. 12. Department of Radiology and Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 13. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark. 14. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 15. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy. 16. IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, via Manzoni 56, 20089 Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 17. IBD unit, Radiology Department, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis and follow up of patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] requires cross-sectional imaging modalities, such as intestinal ultrasound [IUS], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and computed tomography [CT]. The quality and homogeneity of medical reporting are crucial to ensure effective communication between specialists and to improve patient care. The current topical review addresses optimized reporting requirements for cross-sectional imaging in IBD. METHODS: An expert consensus panel consisting of gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons convened by the ECCO in collaboration with ESGAR performed a systematic literature review covering the reporting aspects of MRI, CT, IUS, endoanal ultrasonography and transperineal ultrasonography in IBD. Practice position statements were developed utilizing a Delphi methodology incorporating two consecutive rounds. Current practice positions were set when ≥80% of the participants agreed on a recommendation. RESULTS: Twenty-five practice positions were developed, establishing standard terminology for optimal reporting in cross-sectional imaging. Assessment of inflammation, complications and imaging of perianal CD are outlined. The minimum requirements of a standardized report, including a list of essential reporting items, have been defined. CONCLUSIONS: This topical review offers practice recommendations to optimize and homogenize reporting in cross-sectional imaging in IBD.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis and follow up of patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] requires cross-sectional imaging modalities, such as intestinal ultrasound [IUS], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and computed tomography [CT]. The quality and homogeneity of medical reporting are crucial to ensure effective communication between specialists and to improve patient care. The current topical review addresses optimized reporting requirements for cross-sectional imaging in IBD. METHODS: An expert consensus panel consisting of gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons convened by the ECCO in collaboration with ESGAR performed a systematic literature review covering the reporting aspects of MRI, CT, IUS, endoanal ultrasonography and transperineal ultrasonography in IBD. Practice position statements were developed utilizing a Delphi methodology incorporating two consecutive rounds. Current practice positions were set when ≥80% of the participants agreed on a recommendation. RESULTS: Twenty-five practice positions were developed, establishing standard terminology for optimal reporting in cross-sectional imaging. Assessment of inflammation, complications and imaging of perianal CD are outlined. The minimum requirements of a standardized report, including a list of essential reporting items, have been defined. CONCLUSIONS: This topical review offers practice recommendations to optimize and homogenize reporting in cross-sectional imaging in IBD.
Authors: Pierluigi Puca; Livio Enrico Del Vecchio; Maria Elena Ainora; Antonio Gasbarrini; Franco Scaldaferri; Maria Assunta Zocco Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-08-17
Authors: Shankar Kumar; Andrew Plumb; Sue Mallett; Gauraang Bhatnagar; Stuart Bloom; Caroline S Clarke; John Hamlin; Ailsa L Hart; Ilan Jacobs; Simon Travis; Roser Vega; Steve Halligan; Stuart Andrew Taylor Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 3.006