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.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to test the ability of DAC®, a fast resorbable, antibacterial-loaded hydrogel coating, to prevent acute bacterial colonization in an in vivo model of an intra-operatively highly contaminated implant.MethodsA histocompatibility study was performed in 10 adult New Zealand rabbits. Then, methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus were inoculated in the femur of 30 adult New Zealand rabbits at the time of intra-medullary nailing; vancomycin-loaded DAC® coated nails were compared to controls regarding local and systemic infection development.ResultsHistocompatibility study showed no detrimental effect of DAC® hydrogel on bone tissue after 12 weeks from implant. After seven days from implant, none of the rabbits receiving vancomycin-loaded DAC® nail showed positive blood cultures, compared to all the controls; vancomycin-loaded DAC® coating was associated with local bacterial load reduction ranging from 72 to 99 %, compared to controls.ConclusionsVancomycin-loaded DAC® coating is able to significantly reduce bacterial colonization in an animal model of an intra-operatively highly contaminated implant, without local or general side effect.

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]

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence)

• This is the first meta-analysis on this topic, based on 100,000 patients. • The CTC-related colorectal perforation rate is 0.04%, 0.02% in asymptomatic subjects. • The CTC-induced surgery rate is 0.008% (1:12,500). • The perforation rate in CTC is low, particularly in average-risk, asymptomatic individuals.

Objective To conduct a multireader validation study to evaluate the interobserver variability and the diagnostic accuracy for the lung involvement by COVID-19 of COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) score. Methods This retrospective study included consecutive symptomatic patients who underwent chest CT and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from March 2020 to May 2020 for suspected COVID-19. Twelve readers with different levels of expertise independently scored each CT using the CO-RADS scheme for detecting pulmonary involvement by COVID-19. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to investigate diagnostic yield. Fleiss’ kappa statistics was used to evaluate interreader agreement. Results A total of 572 patients (mean age, 63 ± 20 [standard deviation]; 329 men; 142 patients with COVID-19 and 430 patients without COVID-19) were evaluated. There was a moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating among all readers (Fleiss’ K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42–0.44]) with a substantial agreement for CO-RADS 1 category (Fleiss’ K = 0.61 [95% CI 0.60–0.62]) and moderate agreement for CO-RADS 5 category (Fleiss’ K = 0.60 [95% CI 0.58–0.61]). ROC analysis showed the CO-RADS score ≥ 4 as the optimal threshold, with a cumulative area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 66–78%), sensitivity 61% (95% CI 52–69%), and specificity 81% (95% CI 77–84%). Conclusion CO-RADS showed high diagnostic accuracy and moderate interrater agreement across readers with different levels of expertise. Specificity is higher than previously thought and that could lead to reconsider the role of CT in this clinical setting. Key Points • COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy for lung involvement by COVID-19 with an average AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 67 – 75%). • When a threshold of ≥ 4 was used, sensitivity and specificity were 61% (95% CI 52 – 69%) and 81% (95% CI 76 – 84%), respectively. • There was an overall moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating across readers with different levels of expertise (Fleiss’ K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42 – 0.44]). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-07273-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract