Background: Colonic lipomas are rare and can sometimes cause intussusception. The aim of this review was to define the presentation and possible management for colocolic intussusception caused by colonic lipomas. Methods: A systematic search for patients with colocolic intussusception caused by colonic lipoma, including all available reports up to 2021. Epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and instrumental data and details about the treatments performed were gathered. Results: Colocolic intussusception caused by lipoma is more frequent in women (57%), occurring between 40 and 70 years of age. Up to 83% of patients report abdominal pain, followed by constipation (18%), rectal bleeding (16%), and diarrhea (12%), with abdominal tenderness (37%), and distension in 16%, whereas 24% have a negative exploration. CT (72%) and colonoscopy (62%) are more commonly able to diagnose the entity. The most common location of intussusception is the transverse colon (28%). The surgical operation varies according to the site. The average dimensions of the lipoma are 59.81 × 47.84 × 38.9 mm³. Conclusions: A correct preoperative diagnosis of colonic lipoma causing intussusception might not be easy. Despite nonspecific clinical and laboratory presentation, cross-sectional imaging can help differential diagnosis. Surgical treatment depends on the localization.

Purpose: To compare different commercial software in the quantification of Pneumonia Lesions in COVID-19 infection and to stratify the patients based on the disease severity using on chest computed tomography (CT) images. Materials and methods: We retrospectively examined 162 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. All cases were evaluated separately by radiologists (visually) and by using three computer software programs: (1) Thoracic VCAR software, GE Healthcare, United States; (2) Myrian, Intrasense, France; (3) InferRead, InferVision Europe, Wiesbaden, Germany. The degree of lesions was visually scored by the radiologist using a score on 5 levels (none, mild, moderate, severe, and critic). The parameters obtained using the computer tools included healthy residual lung parenchyma, ground-glass opacity area, and consolidation volume. Intraclass coefficient (ICC), Spearman correlation analysis, and non-parametric tests were performed. Results: Thoracic VCAR software was not able to perform volumes segmentation in 26/162 (16.0%) cases, Myrian software in 12/162 (7.4%) patients while InferRead software in 61/162 (37.7%) patients. A great variability (ICC ranged for 0.17 to 0.51) was detected among the quantitative measurements of the residual healthy lung parenchyma volume, GGO, and consolidations volumes calculated by different computer tools. The overall radiological severity score was moderately correlated with the residual healthy lung parenchyma volume obtained by ThoracicVCAR or Myrian software, with the GGO area obtained by the ThoracicVCAR tool and with consolidation volume obtained by Myrian software. Quantified volumes by InferRead software had a low correlation with the overall radiological severity score. Conclusions: Computer-aided pneumonia quantification could be an easy and feasible way to stratify COVID-19 cases according to severity; however, a great variability among quantitative measurements provided by computer tools should be considered.

Peritoneal carcinosis is a condition characterized by the spread of cancer cells to the peritoneum, which is the thin membrane that lines the abdominal cavity. It is a serious condition that can result from many different types of cancer, including ovarian, colon, stomach, pancreatic, and appendix cancer. The diagnosis and quantification of lesions in peritoneal carcinosis are critical in the management of patients with the condition, and imaging plays a central role in this process. Radiologists play a vital role in the multidisciplinary management of patients with peritoneal carcinosis. They need to have a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology of the condition, the underlying neoplasms, and the typical imaging findings. In addition, they need to be aware of the differential diagnoses and the advantages and disadvantages of the various imaging methods available. Imaging plays a central role in the diagnosis and quantification of lesions, and radiologists play a critical role in this process. Ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance, and PET/CT scans are used to diagnose peritoneal carcinosis. Each imaging procedure has advantages and disadvantages, and particular imaging techniques are recommended based on patient conditions. Our aim is to provide knowledge to radiologists regarding appropriate techniques, imaging findings, differential diagnoses, and treatment options. With the advent of AI in oncology, the future of precision medicine appears promising, and the interconnection between structured reporting and AI is likely to improve diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes for patients with peritoneal carcinosis.

To assess the performance of the second reading of chest compute tomography (CT) examinations by expert radiologists in patients with discordance between the reverse transcription real-time fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19 viral pneumonia and the CT report. Three hundred and seventy-eight patients were included in this retrospective study (121 women and 257 men; 71 years median age, with a range of 29–93 years) and subjected to RT-PCR tests for suspicious COVID-19 infection. All patients were subjected to CT examination in order to evaluate the pulmonary disease involvement by COVID-19. CT images were reviewed first by two radiologists who identified COVID-19 typical CT patterns and then reanalyzed by another two radiologists using a CT structured report for COVID-19 diagnosis. Weighted k values were used to evaluate the inter-reader agreement. The median temporal window between RT-PCRs execution and CT scan was zero days with a range of (−9, 11) days. The RT-PCR test was positive in 328/378 (86.8%). Discordance between RT-PCR and CT findings for viral pneumonia was revealed in 60 cases. The second reading changed the CT diagnosis in 16/60 (26.7%) cases contributing to an increase the concordance with the RT-PCR. Among these 60 cases, eight were false negative with positive RT-PCR, and 36 were false positive with negative RT-PCR. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of CT were respectively of 97.3%, 53.8%, 89.0%, and 88.4%. Double reading of CT scans and expert second readers could increase the diagnostic confidence of radiological interpretation in COVID-19 patients.

Background: Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming necessary and has recently been recognized by major scientific societies. This study aimed to build CT-based structured reports for lung cancer during the staging phase, in order to improve communication between radiologists, members of the multidisciplinary team 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 exercise was used to build the structural report and to assess the level of agreement for all the report sections. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to perform a quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. Results: The final SR version was built by including 16 items in the “Patient Clinical Data” section, 4 items in the “Clinical Evaluation” section, 8 items in the “Exam Technique” section, 22 items in the “Report” section, and 5 items in the “Conclusion” section. Overall, 55 items were included in the final version of the SR. The overall mean of the scores of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.5 (range 1–5) and 631 (mean value 67.54, STD 7.53), respectively, in the first round. The items of the structured report with higher accordance in the first round were primary lesion features, lymph nodes, metastasis and conclusions. The overall mean of the scores of the experts and the sum of scores for staging in the structured report were 4.7 (range 4–5) and 807 (mean value 70.11, STD 4.81), respectively, in the second round. The Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was 0.89 in the first round and 0.92 in the second round for staging in the structured report. Conclusions: The wide implementation of SR is critical for providing referring physicians and patients with the best quality of service, and for providing researchers with the best quality of data in the context of the big data exploitation of the available clinical data. Implementation is complex, requiring mature technology to successfully address pending user-friendliness, organizational and interoperability challenges.

Basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma are the three main types of nonmelanoma skin cancers and their rates of occurrence and mortality have been steadily rising over the past few decades. For radiologists, it is still difficult to treat patients with advanced nonmelanoma skin cancer. Nonmelanoma skin cancer patients would benefit greatly from an improved diagnostic imaging-based risk stratification and staging method that takes into account patient characteristics. The risk is especially elevated among those who previously received systemic treatment or phototherapy. Systemic treatments, including biologic therapies and methotrexate (MTX), are effective in managing immune-mediated diseases; however, they may increase susceptibility to NMSC due to immunosuppression or other factors. Risk stratification and staging tools are crucial in treatment planning and prognostic evaluation. PET/CT appears more sensitive and superior to CT and MRI for nodal and distant metastasis as well as in surveillance after surgery. The patient treatment response improved with advent and utilization of immunotherapy and different immune-specific criteria are established to standardized evaluation criteria of clinical trials but none of them have been utilized routinely with immunotherapy. The advent of immunotherapy has also arisen new critical issues for radiologists, such as atypical response pattern, pseudo-progression, as well as immune-related adverse events that require early identification to optimize and improve patient prognosis and management. It is important for radiologists to have knowledge of the radiologic features site of the tumor, clinical stage, histological subtype, and any high-risk features to assess immunotherapy treatment response and immune-related adverse events.