Gastric cancer represents one of the most common oncological causes of death worldwide. In order to treat patients in the best possible way, the staging of gastric cancer should be accurate. In this regard, endoscopy ultrasound (EUS) has been considered the reference standard for tumor (T) and nodal (N) statuses in recent decades. However, thanks to technological improvements, computed tomography (CT) has gained an important role, not only in the assessment of distant metastases (M status) but also in T and N staging. In addition, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can contribute to the detection and staging of primary gastric tumors thanks to its excellent soft tissue contrast and multiple imaging sequences without radiation-related risks. In addition, MRI can help with the detection of liver metastases, especially small lesions. Finally, positron emission tomography (PET) is still considered a useful diagnostic tool for the staging of gastric cancer patients, with a focus on nodal metastases and peritoneal carcinomatosis. In addition, it may play a role in the treatment of gastric cancer in the coming years thanks to the introduction of new labeling peptides. This review aims to summarize the most common advantages and pitfalls of EUS, CT, MRI and PET in the TNM staging of gastric cancer patients.

The advance in technology allows for the development of different CT scanners in the field of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). In particular, a recently developed detector-based technology can collect data from different energy levels, thanks to its layers. The use of this system is suited for material decomposition with perfect spatial and temporal registration. Thanks to post-processing techniques, these scanners can generate conventional, material decomposition (including virtual non-contrast (VNC), iodine maps, Z-effective imaging, and uric acid pair images) and virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs). In recent years, different studies have been published regarding the use of DECT in clinical practice. On these bases, considering that different papers have been published using the DECT technology, a review regarding its clinical application can be useful. We focused on the usefulness of DECT technology in gastrointestinal imaging, where DECT plays an important role.

During the waves of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, emergency departments were overflowing with patients suffering with suspected medical or surgical issues. In these settings, healthcare staff should be able to deal with different medical and surgical scenarios while protecting themselves against the risk of contamination. Various strategies were used to overcome the most critical issues and guarantee quick and efficient diagnostic and therapeutic charts. The use of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAAT) in the diagnosis of COVID-19 was one of the most adopted worldwide. However, NAAT results were slow to report and could sometimes create significant delays in patient management, especially during pandemic peaks. On these bases, radiology has played and continues to play an essential role in detecting COVID-19 patients and solving differential diagnosis between different medical conditions. This systematic review aims to summarize the role of radiology in the management of COVID-19 patients admitted to emergency departments by using chest X-rays (CXR), computed tomography (CT), lung ultrasounds (LUS), and artificial intelligence (AI).

Both Magnetic Resonance Enterography (MRE) and Computed Tomography Enterography (CTE) are crucial imaging modalities in the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). CTE is often used in acute scenarios, such as when complications (such as abscesses, perforations, or bowel obstructions) are suspected. It can also help determine the degree and extent of pathological processes. Although CTE is rapid, generally accessible, and offers precise images that are useful in emergencies, it does expose patients to ionizing radiation. Nevertheless, MRE is very useful in assessing perianal illness and the small intestine, and it is frequently used in patients who need repeated follow-ups or are pregnant to minimize radiation exposure. Moreover, MRE can demonstrate oedema, fistulas, abscesses, and the thickening of the bowel wall. In addition, MRE offers superior soft tissue contrast resolution without ionizing radiation, which helps identify complications such as fistulas and abscesses. With their respective advantages and disadvantages, both approaches play essential roles in assessing IBD. The primary goal of this review is to provide an overview of the technical specifications, benefits, drawbacks, and imaging findings of CTE and MRE.

Background: the aim of this study is to assess the performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in predicting the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and outcome in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Materials and Methods: ninety-four patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pre- and post-neoadjuvant treatment were retrospectively enrolled. Three regions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn on three different slices of the tumor for every DWI sequence. ROIs were positioned to include only high signal areas and avoid artifacts or necrotic areas. ROIs were automatically copied onto the corresponding ADC maps and the system derived three different ADC values, distinguishing between mean, maximum, and minimum values, and the standard deviation (SD). Only mean ADC values were considered. After surgical intervention, pTNM and the Mandard tumor regression grade (TRG) were obtained. Patients with a TRG of 1–2 were classified as responders, while patients with a TRG from 3 to 5 were classified as non-responders. Results: no correlation was found between pre-ADC values and TRG classes, while post-ADC and ΔADC values showed a significant correlation with TRG classes (r = −0.285, p = 0.002 and r = −0.290, p = 0.019, respectively). Post-ADC values were statistically different between responders and non-responders (p = 0.019). When considering the relation between overall survival (OS) and ADC values, pre-ADC showed a negative correlation with OS (r = −0.381, p = 0.001), while a positive correlation was found between ΔADC values and OS (r = 0.323, p = 0.013). According to ΔADC values, the mean OS time between responders and non-responders showed a significant difference (p = 0.030). A statistical difference was found between TRG classes and OS (p = 0.038) and by dividing patients in responders and non-responders (p = 0.019). Conclusions: the pre-ADC and ΔADC values could be used as useful predictors for patient prognosis, thus helping the treatment planning. On the other hand, the post-ADC values, thanks to their relationship with the TRG classes, could be the ideal tool to predict the histopathological response and plan a conservative approach to the treatment of rectal cancer.

Aim: To evaluate the dose reduction and image quality of low-dose, low-contrast media volume in computed tomography (CT) examinations reconstructed with the model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithm in comparison with the hybrid iterative (HIR) one. Methods: We prospectively enrolled a total of 401 patients referred for cardiovascular CT, evaluated with a 256-MDCT scan with a low kVp (80 kVp) reconstructed with an MBIR (study group) or a standard HIR protocol (100 kVp—control group) after injection of a fixed dose of contrast medium volume. Vessel contrast enhancement and image noise were measured by placing the region of interest (ROI) in the left ventricle, ascending aorta; left, right and circumflex coronary arteries; main, right and left pulmonary arteries; aortic arch; and abdominal aorta. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were computed. Subjective image quality obtained by consensus was assessed by using a 4-point Likert scale. Radiation dose exposure was recorded. Results: HU values of the proximal tract of all coronary arteries; main, right and left pulmonary arteries; and of the aorta were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group (p < 0.05), while the noise was significantly lower (p < 0.05). SNR and CNR values in all anatomic districts were significantly higher in the study group (p < 0.05). MBIR subjective image quality was significantly higher than HIR in CCTA and CTPA protocols (p < 0.05). Radiation dose was significantly lower in the study group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The MBIR algorithm combined with low-kVp can help reduce radiation dose exposure, reduce noise, and increase objective and subjective image quality.