No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental fnd‐ings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are fndings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two‐year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.

Computed tomographic (CT) colonography continues to evolve rapidly. Advances in scanning and display technologies, encouraging performance data, and increased utilization necessitate clarification and standardization of results reporting in CT colonography. There are several reasons for this. First and most important, standardized reporting can better assist patients and referring physi-cians in making management decisions on the basis of the results of CT colonography. The precedent of the mammography Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, or BI-RADS, schema is a strong incentive to provide a similar structure for CT colonography. Second, as more examinations are performed, the likelihood increases that radiologists interpreting results of a CT colonography examination performed at one center will require comparison to examination results and reports generated at other sites. As has been seen with mammography, a common set of terms facilitates this kind of assessment (1). Third, as utilization of CT colonography increases, our colleagues in other medical specialties, the various third-party payers, and the general public will insist on larger-scale evaluations of examination performance, examination quality, patient outcome, and cost. Here again, a common approach to interpretation will assist us in meeting these demands. Finally, a common scheme for reporting facilitates structured reporting.The purpose of this communication is to facilitate clear and consistent communication of CT colonography results. The authors-an ad hoc group of investigators active in the area of CT colonogra-

Background Persons with a family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenomas that are not due to known hereditary syndromes have increased risk for CRC. Understanding these risks, screening recommendations and screening behaviors can inform strategies to reduce CRC burden in these families. Methods A comprehensive review of literature published within the past 10 years was conducted to assess what is known about cancer risk, screening guidelines, adherence and barriers to screening and effective interventions in persons with FH of CRC, and to identify FH tools used to identify these individuals and inform care. Results Existing data show that having one affected first-degree relative (FDR) increases CRC risk by 2-fold, and risk increases with multiple affected FDRs and younger age at diagnosis. There was variability in screening recommendations across consensus guidelines. Screening adherence was <50% and lower in persons under age 50. Having a provider’s recommendation, multiple affected relatives and family encouragement facilitated screening; insufficient collection of FH, low knowledge of guidelines, and poor family communication were important barriers. Effective interventions incorporated strategies for overcoming barriers but these have not been tested broadly in clinical settings. Conclusions Four strategies for reducing CRC in persons with familial risk are suggested: 1) improve how we collect and utilize cancer FH, 2) establish consensus for screening guidelines by FH, 3) enhance provider-patient knowledge of guidelines and communication about CRC risk, 4) encourage survivors to promote screening within their families, and partner with existing screening programs to expand reach to high-risk groups.

Although US had the best diagnostic performance in depicting HCC on a patient-by-patient basis and was substantially better than were MR imaging and CT (which had nearly equivalent diagnostic performances), CT, US, and MR imaging performed similarly on a lesion-by-lesion basis. Small tumor nodules were the most common cause of missed HCCs with all tests. PET did not depict any HCCs.

Hemangiomas and malignant tumors are better differentiated with use of T2 relaxation times obtained with a more heavily T2-weighted sequence.