Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA) is considered the gold standard diagnostic technique in patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism in emergency departments. Several studies have been conducted on the predictive value of CTPA on the outcomes of pulmonary embolism (PE). The purpose of this article is to provide an updated review of the literature reporting imaging parameters and quantitative CT scores to predict the severity of PE.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are heterogeneous tumours with a common phenotype descended from the diffuse endocrine system. NENs are found nearly anywhere in the body but the most frequent location is the gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (GI-NENs) are rather uncommon, representing around 2% of all gastrointestinal tumours and 20–30% of all primary neoplasms of the small bowel. GI-NENs have various clinical manifestations due to the different substances they can produce; some of these tumours appear to be associated with familial syndromes, such as multiple endocrine neoplasm and neurofibromatosis type 1. The current WHO classification (2019) divides NENs into three major categories: well-differentiated NENs, poorly differentiated NENs, and mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms. The diagnosis, localization, and staging of GI-NENs include morphology and functional imaging, above all contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), and in the field of nuclear medicine imaging, a key role is played by ⁶⁸Ga-labelled-somatostatin analogues (⁶⁸Ga-DOTA-peptides) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/TC). In this review of recent literature, we described the objectives of morphological/functional imaging and potential future possibilities of prognostic imaging in the assessment of GI-NENs.

Background: Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in colon cancer during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist, members of multidisciplinary teams and patients. Materials and methods: A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results: The final SR version was built by including n = 18 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, n = 7 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, n = 9 items in the “Imaging Protocol” section and n = 29 items in the “Report” section. Overall, 63 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received a higher than good rating: a mean value of 4.6 and range 3.6–4.9 in the first round; a mean value of 5.0 and range 4.9–5 in the second round. In the first round, Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was a questionable 0.61. In the first round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.6 (range 1–5) and 1111 (mean value 74.07, STD 4.85), respectively. In the second round, Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was an acceptable 0.70. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 (range 4–5) and 1108 (mean value 79.14, STD 1.83), respectively. The overall mean score obtained by the experts in the second round was higher than the overall mean score of the first round, with a lower standard deviation value to underline greater agreement among the experts for the structured report reached in this round. Conclusions: A wide implementation of SR is of critical importance in order to offer referring physicians and patients optimum quality of service and to provide researchers with the best quality data in the context of big data exploitation of available clinical data. Implementation is a complex procedure, requiring mature technology to successfully address the multiple challenges of user-friendliness, organization and interoperability.