The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.

Applications of DECT in clinical practice are based on two capabilities: material differentiation and material identification and quantification. The capability of obtaining different material-specific datasets (iodine map, virtual unenhanced, and monochromatic images) in the same acquisition can improve lesion detection and characterization. This approach can also affect evaluation of the response to therapy and detection of oncology-related disorders. DECT is an innovative imaging technique that can dramatically affect the care of oncologic patients.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. CRC screening by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) has been shown to reduce CRC mortality [3, 4], and is currently used in several European countries. Colonoscopy is highly effective for detecting advanced neoplasia, and endoscopic polypectomy reduces subsequent CRC-specific incidence and mortality [5]. In Europe, colonoscopy is mainly used to investigate FOBT-positive or symptomatic patients, or as a preventive strategy in those with increased CRC risk [6].\ud \ud Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a minimally invasive imaging technique that is highly accurate for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomatous polyps. The technique is standardized [7], and CTC is more easily performed than barium enema. Evidence-based data suggest that CTC is the natural replacement for barium enema and a complementary rather than an alternative examination to colonoscopy. However, the clinical scenarios for which CTC is indicated remain unclear. To address this uncertainty – 20 years after the first presentation of CTC at a radiological meeting [8] – the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) decided to produce a common guideline regarding indications for CTC in clinical practice. Technical and quality issues of CTC have been deliberately excluded from this work as these have already been discussed separately [7]

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance programs on high-risk individuals (HRIs) can detect pre-malignant lesions or early pancreatic cancer (PC). We report the results of the first screening round of the Italian multicenter program supported by the Italian Association for the study of the Pancreas (AISP). METHODS: The multicenter surveillance program included asymptomatic HRIs with familial (FPC) or genetic frailty (GS: BRCA1/2, p16/CDKN2A, STK11/LKB1or PRSS1, mutated genes) predisposition to PC. The surveillance program included at least an annual magnetic resonance cholangio pancreatography (MRCP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was proposed to patients who refused or could not be submitted to MRCP. RESULTS: One-hundreds eighty-seven HRIs underwent a first-round screening examination with MRCP (174; 93.1%) or EUS (13; 6.9%) from September 2015 to March 2018.The mean age was 51 years (range 21–80).One-hundreds sixty-five (88.2%) FPC and 22 (11.8%) GF HRIs were included. MRCP detected 28 (14.9%) presumed branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), 1 invasive carcinoma/IPMN and one low-grade mixed-type IPMN, respectively. EUS detected 4 PC (2.1%): 1 was resected, 1 was found locally advanced intraoperatively, and 2 were metastatic. Age > 50 (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.4–8), smoking habit (OR 2.8, 95%CI 1.1–7.5), and having > 2 relatives with PC (OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.1–6.4) were independently associated with detection of pre-malignant and malignant lesions. The diagnostic yield for MRCP/EUS was 24% for cystic lesions. The overall rate of surgery was 2.6% with nil mortality. DISCUSSION: The rate of malignancies found in this cohort was high (2.6%). According to the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium the screening goal achievement was high (1%).

Objectives To explore radiologists’ opinions regarding the shift from in-person oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) to online MDTMs. To assess the perceived impact of online MDTMs, and to evaluate clinical and technical aspects of online meetings. Methods An online questionnaire including 24 questions was e-mailed to all European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. Questions targeted the structure and efficacy of online MDTMs, including benefits and limitations. Results A total of 204 radiologists responded to the survey. Responses were evaluated using descriptive statistical analysis. The majority (157/204; 77%) reported a shift to online MDTMs at the start of the pandemic. For the most part, this transition had a positive effect on maintaining and improving attendance. The majority of participants reported that online MDTMs provide the same clinical standard as in-person meetings, and that interdisciplinary discussion and review of imaging data were not hindered. Seventy three of 204 (35.8%) participants favour reverting to in-person MDTs, once safe to do so, while 7/204 (3.4%) prefer a continuation of online MDTMs. The majority (124/204, 60.8%) prefer a combination of physical and online MDTMs. Conclusions Online MDTMs are a viable alternative to in-person meetings enabling continued timely high-quality provision of care with maintained coordination between specialties. They were accepted by the majority of surveyed radiologists who also favoured their continuation after the pandemic, preferably in combination with in-person meetings. An awareness of communication issues particular to online meetings is important. Training, improved software, and availability of support are essential to overcome technical and IT difficulties reported by participants. Key Points • Majority of surveyed radiologists reported shift from in-person to online oncologic MDT meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. • The shift to online MDTMs was feasible and generally accepted by the radiologists surveyed with the majority reporting that online MDTMs provide the same clinical standard as in-person meetings. • Most would favour the return to in-person MDTMs but would also accept the continued use of online MDTMs following the end of the current pandemic.