Search

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive malignancy with a high mortality rate. Proper determination of the extent of disease on imaging studies at the time of staging is one of the most important steps in optimal patient management. Given the variability in expertise and definition of disease extent among different practitioners as well as frequent lack of complete reporting of pertinent imaging findings at radiologic examinations, adoption of a standardized template for radiology reporting, using universally accepted and agreed on terminology for solid pancreatic neoplasms, is needed. A consensus statement describing a standardized reporting template authored by a multi-institutional group of experts in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that included radiologists, gastroenterologists, and hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons was developed under the joint sponsorship of the Society of Abdominal Radiologists and the American Pancreatic Association. Adoption of this standardized imaging reporting template should improve the decision-making process for the management of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by providing a complete, pertinent, and accurate reporting of disease staging to optimize treatment recommendations that can be offered to the patient. Standardization can also help to facilitate research and clinical trial design by using appropriate and consistent staging by means of resectability status, thus allowing for comparison of results among different institutions.

To retrospectively evaluate the frequency of recommendations for additional imaging (RAIs) for important extracolonic findings and polyp prevalence among a cohort of seniors (age ≥ 65 years) and nonseniors (age65 years) undergoing low-dose computed tomographic (CT) colonography.Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. Four hundred fifty-four patients (204 nonseniors: mean age, 52 years; 250 seniors: mean age, 69 years) underwent CT colonography at an outpatient facility. Cases were prospectively reported by one of four abdominal radiologists with expertise in CT colonography. The dictated reports were reviewed to determine the frequency of polyps (≥6 mm), the number of extracolonic findings, and the number of RAIs generated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of seniors and nonseniors with at least one reported polyp, with at least one extracolonic finding, as well as the frequency of RAIs.The percentage of patients with at least one reported polyp was 14.2% (29 of 204) for the nonsenior group and 13.2% (33 of 250) for seniors, which was not significantly different (P = .772). The percentage of patients with at least one extracolonic finding was 55.4% (113 of 204) for nonseniors and 74.0% (185 of 250) for seniors (P.0001). The percentage of patients in which an RAI was suggested was 4.4% (nine of 204) for nonseniors and 6.0% (15 of 250) for seniors, which was not significantly different (P = .450).Extracolonic findings were more frequent in seniors than in nonseniors; however, there was no significant difference in the frequency of RAIs between the two groups.http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11102144/-/DC1.

To evaluate the possible radiation dose reduction facilitated by using dual-energy (DE) multidetector computed tomography (CT) after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).This prospective study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved. Twenty-two patients who previously had undergone endovascular repair of AAAs underwent 24 DE multidetector CT examinations, which were performed with a 64-detector scanner. Initial nonenhanced CT was followed by arterial phase and venous phase acquisitions. Virtual nonenhanced, pure 80-kVp, and weighted-average peak voltage CT data sets were generated from the venous acquisition. Two independent readers interpreted the virtual nonenhanced and DE weighted-average CT data for the presence or absence of endoleaks. These interpretations were compared with the clinical interpretations of the data performed by a different radiologist by using true nonenhanced, arterial phase, and venous phase data. Region-of-interest measurements of the abdominal aorta and of the region of the endoleaks were obtained. Effective radiation dose was calculated.Both independent readers' interpretations of the virtual nonenhanced and weighted-average venous CT data revealed six type II endoleaks. There were no false-positive or false-negative findings. Aortic attenuation during the arterial, 80-kVp venous, and weighted-average data acquisitions were 288, 213, and 150 HU, respectively. The attenuation of the endoleaks was higher during the 80-kVp acquisition (P.03) than during the arterial phase and weighted-average venous phase acquisitions. The mean effective dose for DE venous phase CT was 11.1 mSv compared with 27.8 mSv for standard triple-phase CT with a single-source configuration.Preliminary observations suggest that obtaining DE multidetector CT data by using a single 60-second contrast material-enhanced acquisition may be all that is required for surveillance after endovascular repair of AAA.

To retrospectively determine if arterial phase computed tomographic (CT) imaging is necessary for follow-up imaging of patients who have undergone endovascular stent-graft therapy for abdominal aortic aneurysm.This HIPAA-compliant study was exempt from institutional review board approval; informed patient consent was waived. Eighty-five patients (66 men, 19 women; mean age, 66 years; range, 45-81 years) underwent 110 multidetector CT examinations after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Nonenhanced CT images were obtained. Intravenous contrast material was then injected at 4 mL/sec, and arterial and venous phase (60 seconds) CT images were obtained. The nonenhanced and venous phase images were evaluated to determine if an endoleak was present. Subsequently, arterial phase images were analyzed. The effective dose was calculated. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals as indicators of how often arterial phase imaging would contribute to the diagnosis of endoleak were determined.Twenty-eight type II endoleaks were detected by using combined nonenhanced and venous phase acquisitions. Twenty-five of the 28 endoleaks were also visualized during the arterial phase. Three type II endoleaks were seen only during the venous phase. The arterial phase images depicted no additional endoleaks. Seventy-eight CT examinations performed in 67 patients revealed no endoleak during the venous phase. The arterial phase images also depicted no endoleaks at these examinations. Thus, for no more than 3.1% of all examinations, there was 95% confidence that arterial phase imaging would depict an endoleak missed at venous phase imaging. Arterial phase imaging contributed to a mean of 36.5% of the effective dose delivered.Study results indicate that arterial phase imaging may not be necessary for the routine detection of endoleaks. Radiation exposure can be decreased by eliminating this phase.

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 physicians 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 colonography—have collaborated to develop a reporting scheme that is coupled to recommendations for follow-up. Our group, the Working Group on Virtual Colonoscopy, includes members of the American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee. On the basis of our collective experience and a review of the relevant literature, we present a practical guide to the interpretation of CT colonography results: the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System, or “C-RADS.” Future multidisciplinary collaboration and longitudinal data may lead to a refinement of the terms and concepts we present here; our effort is a starting point in which we attempt to address the needs of current practice. Adequate training and rigorous quality control of examination performance are essential elements for maximizing the potential of CT colonography; however, these related topics will not be discussed here. Instead, we will focus on the interpretation and follow-up of CT colonography results in three parts: first, a description of terms useful for reporting the size, morphologic features, and location of polyps and masses; second, a description of a classification scheme for colonic lesions and suggestions for follow-up; Published online 10.1148/radiol.2361041926 Radiology 2005; 236:3–9 1 From the Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology/ White 270, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114 (M.E.Z.). The complete list of author affiliations is at the end of this article. Received November 12, 2004; accepted November 15. Address correspondence to M.E.Z. (e-mail: mzalis@partners.org).

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency with which polyps change positions with respect to the bowel surface and the cause of this movement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2001 to March 2003, 113 patients underwent computed tomographic (CT) colonography prior to colonoscopy. For all confirmed polyps that were 5 mm and larger, images obtained with CT colonography were retrospectively analyzed by one author to determine if the polyp was present on both data sets or on only one data set. Retrospective evaluation of these polyps for ventral or dorsal location within the colonic lumen was performed for data sets obtained with patients in the prone and the supine position. The data sets were further reviewed by another author to determine the cause of positional change, when present. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients had a total of 49 histologically proved colorectal polyps that were 5 mm and larger. Eight of 49 colorectal polyps were depicted only on images obtained with the patient in the supine or prone position. Of the remaining 41 polyps that were depicted on images obtained with the patient in the supine and the prone position, 11 moved from a dorsal to a ventral location or vice versa relative to the colonic surface when the patient changed position. Five of these polyps were pedunculated on a stalk. Six were sessile; two were located in the sigmoid colon, two in the transverse colon, one in the ascending colon, and one in the cecum. In these cases, polyp mobility was related to positional changes of the colon in the mesentery, as opposed to true mobility of the polyp. CONCLUSION: In this series, 27% of polyps moved from a ventral location to a dorsal location relative to the colonic surface when the patient was turned from the supine to the prone position; thus, polyps appeared to be mobile. Thus, a mobile filling defect cannot be assumed to be residual fecal material at CT colonography.

In 70 patients referred for evaluation of aortoiliac aneurysm disease, multi-detector row computed tomography was performed with a uniform 25-second delay from the initiation of intravenous administration of a 150-mL bolus of contrast material at 4 mL/sec. In all patients, adequate enhancement (>200 HU) of the aorta and intense enhancement of iliofemoral runoff was achieved without venous contamination.

To evaluate routine non-contrast material-enhanced helical computed tomography (CT) of the adrenal glands in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma to facilitate characterization of adrenal masses detected in an unmonitored environment (i.e., the radiologist on duty did not look at the acquired images before the patient left the scanner).One hundred consecutive patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma were referred for CT evaluation of the chest; chest and abdomen; or chest, abdomen, and brain. All underwent unenhanced CT of the adrenal glands before the requested CT examination. The morphologic features, size, and attenuation values of the adrenal masses were calculated. Attenuation values of adrenal masses from prior imaging, if available, were compared with those at follow-up imaging to classify these masses. Variable unit cost increase in obtaining these additional images was estimated.Fifteen adrenal masses were identified in 13 patients. In one patient, bilateral ill-defined adrenal masses were present. In 12 patients, 13 masses were sharply circumscribed: Seven were less than 10 HU and six were 20 HU or greater at unenhanced CT. Nine of these 12 patients received iodinated contrast material. Without the unenhanced CT, 10 adrenal masses in these nine patients would have been indeterminate for malignancy. In six of these nine patients, the adrenal mass was the only potential site of metastatic disease. The unenhanced CT data helped classify three of these masses as benign-10 HU or less- and three as indeterminate-greater than 10 HU.Unenhanced CT of the adrenal glands can prospectively characterize adrenal masses and obviate further examination in patients with lung carcinoma.

Variability in how an individual radiologist perceives the relevance and importance of a given pancreatic cyst and how that perception is translated into diagnostic recommendations is of concern to radiologists, gastroenterologists, and surgeons who manage these patients.

To qualitatively and quantitatively compare virtual nonenhanced (VNE) data sets derived from dual-energy (DE) computed tomography (CT) with true nonenhanced (TNE) data sets in the same patients and to calculate potential radiation dose reductions for a dual-phase renal multidetector CT compared with a standard triple-phase protocol.This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; all patients provided written informed consent. Seventy one men (age range, 30-88 years) and 39 women (age range, 22-87 years) underwent preoperative DE CT that included unenhanced, DE nephrographic, and delayed phases. DE CT parameters were 80 and 140 kV, 96 mAs (effective). Collimation was 14 x 1.2 mm. CT numbers were measured in renal parenchyma and tumor, liver, aorta, and psoas muscle. Image noise was measured on TNE and VNE images. Exclusion of relevant anatomy with the 26-cm field of view detector was quantified with a five-point scale (0 = none, 4 =75%). Image quality and noise (1 = none, 5 = severe) and acceptability for VNE and TNE images were rated. Effective radiation doses for DE CT and TNE images were calculated. Differences were tested with a Student t test for paired samples.Mean CT numbers (+/- standard deviation) on TNE and VNE images, respectively, for renal parenchyma were 30.8 HU +/- 4.0 and 31.6 HU +/- 7.1, P = .29; liver, 55.8 HU +/- 8.6 and 57.8 HU +/- 10.1, P = .11; aorta, 42.1 HU +/- 4.1 and 43.0 HU +/- 8.8, P = .16; psoas, 47.3 HU +/- 5.6 and 48.1 HU +/- 9.3 HU, P = .38. No exclusion of the contralateral kidney was seen in 50 patients, less than 25% was seen in 43, 25%-50% was seen in 13, and 50%-75% was seen in four. Mean image noise was 1.71 +/- 0.71 for VNE and 1.22 +/- 0.45 for TNE (P.001); image quality was 1.70 HU +/- 0.72 for VNE and 1.15 HU +/- 0.36 for TNE (P.0001). In all but three patients radiologists accepted VNE images as replacement for TNE images. Mean effective dose for DE CT scans of the abdomen was 5.21 mSv +/- 1.86 and that for nonenhanced scans was 4.97 mSv +/- 1.43. Mean dose reduction by omitting the TNE scan was 35.05%.In patients with renal masses, DE CT can provide high-quality VNE data sets, which are a reasonable approximation of TNE data sets. Integration of DE scanning into a renal mass protocol will lower radiation exposure by 35%.

To determine whether computer-aided detection (CAD) applied to computed tomographic (CT) colonography can help improve sensitivity of polyp detection by less-experienced radiologist readers, with colonoscopy or consensus used as the reference standard.The release of the CT colonographic studies was approved by the individual institutional review boards of each institution. Institutions from the United States were HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was waived at all institutions. The CT colonographic studies in 30 patients from six institutions were collected; 24 images depicted at least one confirmed polyp 6 mm or larger (39 total polyps) and six depicted no polyps. By using an investigational software package, seven less-experienced readers from two institutions evaluated the CT colonographic images and marked or scored polyps by using a five-point scale before and after CAD. The time needed to interpret the CT colonographic findings without CAD and then to re-evaluate them with CAD was recorded. For each reader, the McNemar test, adjusted for clustered data, was used to compare sensitivities for readers without and with CAD; a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the number of false-positive results per patient.The average sensitivity of the seven readers for polyp detection was significantly improved with CAD-from 0.810 to 0.908 (P=.0152). The number of false-positive results per patient without and with CAD increased from 0.70 to 0.96 (95% confidence interval for the increase: -0.39, 0.91). The mean total time for the readings was 17 minutes 54 seconds; for interpretation of CT colonographic findings alone, the mean time was 14 minutes 16 seconds; and for review of CAD findings, the mean time was 3 minutes 38 seconds.Results of this feasibility study suggest that CAD for CT colonography significantly improves per-polyp detection for less-experienced readers.

Over the past decade, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (also known as virtual colonoscopy) has been used to investigate the colon for colorectal neoplasia. Numerous clinical and technical advances have allowed CT colonography to advance slowly from a research tool to a viable option for colorectal cancer screening. However, substantial controversy remains among radiologists, gastroenterologists, and other clinicians with regard to the current role of CT colonography in clinical practice. On the one hand, all agree there is much excitement about a noninvasive imaging examination that can reliably depict clinically important colorectal lesions. However, this is tempered by results from several recent studies that show the sensitivity of CT colonography may not be as great when performed and the images interpreted by radiologists without expertise and training. The potential to miss important lesions exists; moreover, if polyps cannot be differentiated from folds and residual fecal matter, unnecessary colonoscopy will be performed. In this review, current issues will be discussed regarding colon cancer and the established and reimbursed strategies to screen for it and the past, current, and potential future role of CT colonography.

To compare thin-section multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography with conventional colonoscopy in the evaluation of colorectal polyps and cancer in asymptomatic average-risk patients.Sixty-eight asymptomatic men (age50 years) scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were enrolled in this study. CT colonography was followed by conventional colonoscopy, performed on the same day. Supine and prone CT colonography were performed after colonic insufflation with room air. A gastroenterologist measured all polyps, which were categorized as 1-5, 6-9, or over 10 mm. Biopsy and histologic evaluation were performed of all polyps. CT colonography and colonoscopy results were compared for location, size, and morphology of detected lesions. Point estimates and 95% CIs were provided for specificity and sensitivity of CT by using results at conventional colonoscopy as the reference standard.At colonoscopy, 98 polyps were identified in 39 patients; 21 (21.4%) of 98 were detected at CT colonography. Sensitivity was 11.5% (nine of 78) for polyps 1-5 mm, 52.9% (nine of 17) for polyps 6-9 mm, and 100% (three of three) for polyps over 10 mm. Results at colonoscopy were normal in 29 (42.6%) of 68 patients; at CT colonography, results were correctly identified as normal in 26 of these 29 patients. In one of these patients, a lesion larger than 10 mm was detected at CT colonography. The per-patient specificity of CT was 89.7% (26 of 29; 95% CI: 72.7%, 97.8%). The mean time for CT image interpretation was 9 minutes.In patients at average risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is a sensitive and specific screening test for detecting polyps 10 mm or larger; the sensitivity for detecting smaller polyps is decreased. Examination findings can be interpreted in a clinically feasible amount of time.

To evaluate if differences exist in the interpretation of thin- and thick-section reconstructions at computed tomographic (CT) colonography.Twenty-five patients underwent multi-detector row CT colonography prior to colonoscopy. CT images were reconstructed with two methods: 1.25-mm sections reconstructed every 1 mm (thin) and 5-mm sections reconstructed every 2 mm (thick). Two independent readers interpreted thin sections, then waited a minimum of 15 days before interpreting thick sections. With colonoscopy as the reference standard, comparisons were made between interpretation of thin and thick sections, including sensitivity, specificity, and number of false-positive observations. Interpretation times were recorded, and comparisons were made by using repeated measures analysis of variance. For all tests, P.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.At colonoscopy, 10 patients had 12 polyps (or =5 mm, n = 7; 6-9 mm, n = 2;or =10 mm, n = 3). Sensitivity for polyp detection was statistically indistinguishable for thin and thick sections. Reader 1 had three false-positive findings with thin sections and six with thick sections. Reader 2 had six false-positive findings with thin sections and 11 with thick sections. For both readers, the number of false-positive findings was significantly lower for thin sections than for thick sections (P =.035). Specificity was 93.3% with thin sections and 80.0% with thick sections for reader 1 and 80.0% with thin sections and 73.3% with thick sections for reader 2. Mean interpretation time for reader 1 was significantly longer with thin sections (P.001). Mean interpretation time for reader 2 was 13.0 minutes for both thin and thick sections.Specificity improved for both readers with thin sections, with no difference in sensitivity.

To prospectively compare thin-section low-dose multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) colonography with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasms.One hundred five patients underwent CT colonography immediately before colonoscopy. Supine and prone CT colonographic acquisitions to image the region during a 30-second breath hold were performed. CT colonographic images were prospectively interpreted for the presence, location, size, and morphologic features of polyps. The time of image interpretation was noted. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CT colonography were calculated, with 95% CIs, by using colonoscopic findings as the reference standard. The weighted CT dose index was calculated on the basis of measurements in a standard body phantom. Effective dose was calculated by using commercially available software.Median CT data interpretation time was 12 minutes. One hundred thirty-two polyps in 59 patients were identified at colonoscopy; no polyps were detected in 46 patients. Sensitivities for detection of polyps smaller than 5 mm, 6-9 mm, and larger than 10 mm in diameter were 12% (11 of 91 polyps), 70% (19 of 27 polyps), and 93% (13 of 14 polyps), respectively. Estimated overall specificity was 97.7% (515 of 527 imaging results). The total weighted CT dose index for combined supine and prone CT colonography was 11.4 mGy. The effective doses for combined CT colonography were 5.0 mSv and 7.8 mSv for men and women, respectively.Low-dose multi-detector row CT colonography has excellent sensitivity and specificity for detection of colorectal neoplasms 10 mm and larger.

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of focused helical computed tomography (CT) with orally administered contrast material with that of nonfocused helical CT with orally and intravenously administered contrast material.After receiving oral contrast material, 228 patients with clinically suspected appendicitis underwent focused appendiceal CT (5-mm section thickness, 15-cm coverage in the right lower quadrant). Immediately thereafter, helical CT of the entire abdomen and pelvis was performed following intravenous administration of contrast material (abdomen, 7-mm section thickness; pelvis, 5-mm section thickness). Studies were separated and independently interpreted by three observers who were blinded to patient names. Diagnoses were established by means of surgical and/or clinical follow-up findings.Fifty-one (22.4%) of 228 patients had acute appendicitis. Readers diagnosed appendicitis with 83.3%, 73.8%, and 71.4% sensitivity and 93.0%, 92.3%, and 97.9% specificity with focused nonenhanced appendiceal CT. Readers diagnosed appendicitis with 92.9%, 92.9%, and 88.1% sensitivity and 93.7%, 95.1%, and 96.5% specificity with nonfocused enhanced CT. Summary areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve estimates for focused nonenhanced and nonfocused enhanced CT were 0.916 and 0.964, respectively; the differences were statistically significant (P.05) for two of three readers. All readers demonstrated higher sensitivities for detecting the inflamed appendix with nonfocused enhanced CT. Appendicitis was missed with focused CT in two patients whose inflamed appendix was not included in the imaging of the right lower quadrant. All readers were significantly more confident in diagnosing alternative conditions with nonfocused enhanced CT.Diagnostic accuracy of helical CT for acute appendicitis improved significantly with use of intravenous contrast material.

The effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid during computed tomographic (CT) colonography was evaluated. Forty-two patients received either a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution preparation or a phospho-soda preparation the day prior to CT colonography. The amount of residual fluid was calculated for each patient. On average, a phospho-soda preparation provided significantly less residual fluid than a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution preparation.

To determine whether delayed computed tomography (CT) can help confirm vascularity in a neoplasm and differentiate it from a high-density cyst when a well-demarcated homogeneous high-attenuating (30-HU) renal mass is incidentally discovered during contrast material-enhanced CT.In 25 patients, 26 well-demarcated, homogeneous high-attenuating renal masses (mean diameter, 2.5 cm; range, 1-4 cm) detected at initial postcontrast CT were further evaluated with delayed CT (mean, 38 minutes; range, 15-240 minutes) performed with identical parameters. On both the initial postcontrast and delayed CT scans, region-of-interest measurements were obtained in renal masses and in the gallbladder or low-density renal cysts as controls. Correlation with surgical or additional imaging findings was used to determine proof of diagnosis.Nine of the masses demonstrated no change in attenuation between initial postcontrast and delayed CT, indicating that they represented avascular lesions consistent with high-density cysts. These cases were confirmed with prior or follow-up imaging studies that demonstrated stability. Seventeen masses (nine surgically proved neoplasms and eight neoplasms that demonstrated interval growth at follow-up or previous CT) demonstrated decreased attenuation at delayed CT compared with initial postcontrast CT, which indicates vascularity.Delayed CT of incidentally discovered well-demarcated homogeneous high-attenuating (30-HU) renal masses detected at postcontrast CT enables differentiation of high-density cysts from renal neoplasms by demonstrating deenhancement as a proof of vascularity and, hence, neoplasm.

To determine whether the "accordion sign" is a specific computed tomographic (CT) sign of Clostridium difficile colitis.Fifty-seven patients with CT evidence of severe colitis, as judged by colonic wall thickening, an abnormal haustral pattern, the target sign, and stranding of the pericolic fat, were identified from a computerized CT database for 25 months. CT images were retrospectively evaluated for the presence of oral contrast material in the colon and for the accordion sign. The medical and laboratory records of all patients were reviewed and correlated with CT findings to establish the cause of colitis.Oral contrast material had reached the colon in 35 of 57 patients at the time of the CT examination. The images in 15 of these patients demonstrated the accordion sign, and those in 20 patients did not. C difficile colitis was documented in four of the 15 cases displaying the accordion sign. In the remaining 11 patients, a different cause was documented. Oral contrast material had not reached the colon in the remaining 22 patients. Within this group with findings similar to the accordion sign, five patients had documented C difficile colitis, and four had colitis from other causes.The accordion sign is indicative of severe colonic edema or inflammation, but it is not specific for C difficile colitis.