AC Search
Document Navigator
Suspected Abdominal Neoplasm-Child
Variant: 1
Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Peds Relative Radiation Level |
| US abdomen | Usually Appropriate | O |
| Radiography abdomen | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢ |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| US pelvis transabdominal | May Be Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) | O |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| US abdomen with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MIBG scan whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest | Usually Not Appropriate | Varies |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
Variant: 2
Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Peds Relative Radiation Level |
| US abdomen | Usually Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| US pelvis transabdominal | May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) | O |
| CT abdomen without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| US abdomen with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MIBG scan whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest | Usually Not Appropriate | Varies |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
Variant: 3
Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
| Procedure | Appropriateness Category | Peds Relative Radiation Level |
| US abdomen | Usually Appropriate | O |
| CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast | Usually Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) | O |
| MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | O |
| MRI abdomen without IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | O |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast | May Be Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| US abdomen with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| US pelvis transabdominal | Usually Not Appropriate | O |
| Radiography abdomen | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢ |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/MRI whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MIBG scan whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest | Usually Not Appropriate | Varies |
| CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT abdomen without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢☢ |
| CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
| FDG-PET/CT whole body | Usually Not Appropriate | ☢☢☢☢ |
Panel Members
Marla B.K. Sammer, MD, MHAa, Michael M. Moore, MDb, Matthew L. Cooper, MDc, Matthew R. Hammer, MDd, Marcus Jarboe, MDe, Terry L. Levin, MDf, Margaret Macy, MDg, Mariana L. Meyers, MDh, Barrie S. Rich, MDi, Jonathan D. Samet, MDj, Gary R. Schooler, MDk, Judy H. Squires, MDl, Raphael C. Sun, MDm, Amit S. Sura, MD, MBAn, Andrew T. Trout, MDo, Ramesh S. Iyer, MD, MBAp
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Initial Imaging Definition
Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:
- There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (ie, only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)
OR
- There are complementary procedures (ie, more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
E. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast
E. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
F. CT abdomen without IV contrast
F. CT abdomen without IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
G. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast
G. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
H. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast
H. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
I. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast
I. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
J. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
J. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
K. FDG-PET/CT whole body
K. FDG-PET/CT whole body
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
L. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
L. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
M. FDG-PET/MRI whole body
M. FDG-PET/MRI whole body
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
N. MIBG scan whole body
N. MIBG scan whole body
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
O. MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest
O. MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
P. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
P. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
R. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast
R. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
S. MRI abdomen without IV contrast
S. MRI abdomen without IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
T. Radiography abdomen
T. Radiography abdomen
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
U. US abdomen
U. US abdomen
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
V. US abdomen with IV contrast
V. US abdomen with IV contrast
Variant 1:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Initial imaging.
W. US pelvis transabdominal
W. US pelvis transabdominal
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
E. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast
E. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
F. CT abdomen without IV contrast
F. CT abdomen without IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
G. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast
G. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
H. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast
H. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
I. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast
I. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
J. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
J. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
K. FDG-PET/CT whole body
K. FDG-PET/CT whole body
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
L. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
L. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
M. FDG-PET/MRI whole body
M. FDG-PET/MRI whole body
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
N. MIBG scan whole body
N. MIBG scan whole body
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
O. MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest
O. MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
P. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
P. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
R. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast
R. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
S. MRI abdomen without IV contrast
S. MRI abdomen without IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
T. US abdomen
T. US abdomen
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
U. US abdomen with IV contrast
U. US abdomen with IV contrast
Variant 2:Child. Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected neoplasm. Radiography negative. Next imaging study.
V. US pelvis transabdominal
V. US pelvis transabdominal
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast
D. CT abdomen with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
E. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast
E. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
F. CT abdomen without IV contrast
F. CT abdomen without IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
G. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast
G. CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
H. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast
H. CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
I. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast
I. CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
J. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
J. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
K. FDG-PET/CT whole body
K. FDG-PET/CT whole body
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
L. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
L. FDG-PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
M. FDG-PET/MRI whole body
M. FDG-PET/MRI whole body
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
N. MIBG scan whole body
N. MIBG scan whole body
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
O. MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest
O. MIBG scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
P. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
P. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Q. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
R. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast
R. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
S. MRI abdomen without IV contrast
S. MRI abdomen without IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
T. Radiography abdomen
T. Radiography abdomen
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
U. US abdomen
U. US abdomen
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
V. US abdomen with IV contrast
V. US abdomen with IV contrast
Variant 3:Child. Palpable abdominal wall mass. Suspected abdominal wall neoplasm. Initial imaging.
W. US pelvis transabdominal
W. US pelvis transabdominal
Summary of Highlights
Supporting Documents
The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.
For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.
Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause
The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.
Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions
|
Appropriateness Category Name |
Appropriateness Rating |
Appropriateness Category Definition |
|
Usually Appropriate |
7, 8, or 9 |
The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients. |
|
May Be Appropriate |
4, 5, or 6 |
The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal. |
|
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) |
5 |
The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned. |
|
Usually Not Appropriate |
1, 2, or 3 |
The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable. |
Relative Radiation Level Information
Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.
|
Relative Radiation Level Designations |
||
|
Relative Radiation Level* |
Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range |
Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range |
|
O |
0 mSv |
0 mSv |
|
☢ |
<0.1 mSv |
<0.03 mSv |
|
☢☢ |
0.1-1 mSv |
0.03-0.3 mSv |
|
☢☢☢ |
1-10 mSv |
0.3-3 mSv |
|
☢☢☢☢ |
10-30 mSv |
3-10 mSv |
|
☢☢☢☢☢ |
30-100 mSv |
10-30 mSv |
|
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.” |
||
References
| 1. | Lucena IRS, Chedid MF, Isolan PS, et al. A comparison between ultrasonography and single-phase computed tomography for preoperative assessment of solid abdominal tumors in children. Jornal de Pediatria. 99(1):17-22, 2023 Jan-Feb. | |
| 2. | Schooler GR, Infante JC, Acord M, et al. Imaging of pediatric liver tumors: A COG Diagnostic Imaging Committee/SPR Oncology Committee White Paper. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2023 Jun;70 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):e29965. | |
| 3. | Lai HA, Sharp SE, Bhatia A, et al. Imaging of pediatric neuroblastoma: A COG Diagnostic Imaging Committee/SPR Oncology Committee White Paper. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 70 Suppl 4:e29974, 2023 06. | |
| 4. | Rees MA, Morin CE, Behr GG, et al. Imaging of pediatric adrenal tumors: A COG Diagnostic Imaging Committee/SPR Oncology Committee White Paper. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 70 Suppl 4:e29973, 2023 06. | |
| 5. | Artunduaga M, Eklund M, van der Beek JN, et al. Imaging of pediatric renal tumors: A COG Diagnostic Imaging Committee/SPR Oncology Committee White Paper focused on Wilms tumor and nephrogenic rests. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2023 Jun;70 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):e30004. | |
| 6. | Srinivasan A, Parikh A, Pace E, Schechter A, Tang E, Servaes S. Imaging of pediatric abdominal soft tissue tumors: A COG Diagnostic Imaging Committee/SPR Oncology Committee White Paper. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 70 Suppl 4:e30341, 2023 06. | |
| 7. | Yanik GA, Parisi MT, Shulkin BL, et al. Semiquantitative mIBG scoring as a prognostic indicator in patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma: a report from the Children's oncology group. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 54(4):541-8, 2013 Apr. | |
| 8. | Bleeker G, Tytgat GA, Adam JA, et al. 123I-MIBG scintigraphy and 18F-FDG-PET imaging for diagnosing neuroblastoma. [Review]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (9)CD009263, 2015 Sep 29. | |
| 9. | Decarolis B, Schneider C, Hero B, et al. Iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy scoring allows prediction of outcome in patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma: results of the Cologne interscore comparison study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 31(7):944-51, 2013 Mar 01. | |
| 10. | Littooij AS, Kwee TC, Barber I, et al. Whole-body MRI for initial staging of paediatric lymphoma: prospective comparison to an FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. European Radiology. 24(5):1153-65, 2014 May. | |
| 11. | Dhull VS, Sharma P, Patel C, et al. Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in paediatric neuroblastoma: comparison with 131I-MIBG scintigraphy. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 36(10):1007-13, 2015 Oct. | |
| 12. | DuBois SG, Mody R, Naranjo A, et al. MIBG avidity correlates with clinical features, tumor biology, and outcomes in neuroblastoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017 Nov;64(11). | |
| 13. | Gawande RS, Gonzalez G, Messing S, Khurana A, Daldrup-Link HE. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating benign and malignant pediatric abdominal tumors. Pediatric Radiology. 43(7):836-45, 2013 Jul. | |
| 14. | Callahan MJ, MacDougall RD, Bixby SD, Voss SD, Robertson RL, Cravero JP. Ionizing radiation from computed tomography versus anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in infants and children: patient safety considerations. [Review]. Pediatric Radiology. 48(1):21-30, 2018 01. | |
| 15. | Kim YY, Shin HJ, Kim MJ, Lee MJ. Comparison of effective radiation doses from X-ray, CT, and PET/CT in pediatric patients with neuroblastoma using a dose monitoring program. Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology. 22(4):390-4, 2016 Jul-Aug. | |
| 16. | Piccardo A, Morana G, Puntoni M, et al. Diagnosis, Treatment Response, and Prognosis: The Role of 18F-DOPA PET/CT in Children Affected by Neuroblastoma in Comparison with 123I-mIBG Scan: The First Prospective Study. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 61(3):367-374, 2020 03. | |
| 17. | Littooij AS, de Keizer B. Imaging in neuroblastoma. [Review]. Pediatric Radiology. 53(4):783-787, 2023 04. | |
| 18. | Mhlanga J, Alazraki A, Cho SY, et al. Imaging recommendations in pediatric lymphoma: A COG Diagnostic Imaging Committee/SPR Oncology Committee White Paper. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 70 Suppl 4:e29968, 2023 06.Pediatr Blood Cancer. 70 Suppl 4:e29968, 2023 06. | |
| 19. | van der Beek JN, Artunduaga M, Schenk JP, et al. Similarities and controversies in imaging of pediatric renal tumors: A SIOP-RTSG and COG collaboration. [Review]. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 70 Suppl 2:e30080, 2023 05. | |
| 20. | Khanna G, Naranjo A, Hoffer F, et al. Detection of preoperative wilms tumor rupture with CT: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Radiology. 266(2):610-7, 2013 Feb. | |
| 21. | Kirchner J, Deuschl C, Schweiger B, et al. Imaging children suffering from lymphoma: an evaluation of different 18F-FDG PET/MRI protocols compared to whole-body DW-MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(10):1742-1750, 2017 Sep. | |
| 22. | Mirza W, McHugh K, Aslam M, et al. CT Pelvis in Children; Should We Routinely Scan Pelvis for Wilms Tumor and Hepatoblastoma? Implications for Imaging Protocol Development. Jcpsp, Journal of the College of Physicians & Surgeons - Pakistan. 25(10):768770-695, 2015 Oct. | |
| 23. | Lim II, Goldman DA, Farber BA, et al. Image-defined risk factors for nephrectomy in patients undergoing neuroblastoma resection. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 51(6):975-80, 2016 Jun. | |
| 24. | Voss SD. Staging and following common pediatric malignancies: MRI versus CT versus functional imaging. [Review]. Pediatric Radiology. 48(9):1324-1336, 2018 08. | |
| 25. | Wang Y, Xu Y, Kan Y, Wang W, Yang J. Diagnostic Value of Seven Different Imaging Modalities for Patients with Neuroblastic Tumors: A Network Meta-Analysis. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging. 2021:5333366, 2021. | |
| 26. | Kim HHR, Hull NC, Lee EY, Phillips GS. Pediatric Abdominal Masses: Imaging Guidelines and Recommendations. [Review]. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 60(1):113-129, 2022 Jan. | |
| 27. | Wang H, Li T, Chen X, et al. Correlations Between Preoperative Radiographic Vascular Involvement of Abdominal/Pelvic Neuroblastomas on Computed Tomography and Intraoperative Vascular Injuries: Experience From a Tertiary Children's Hospital. Academic Radiology. 30(7):1350-1357, 2023 Jul. | |
| 28. | Adams HJ, Kwee TC, Vermoolen MA, Ludwig I, Bierings MB, Nievelstein RA. Whole-body MRI vs. CT for staging lymphoma: patient experience. Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jan;83(1):S0720-048X(13)00539-1. | |
| 29. | Servaes S, Khanna G, Naranjo A, et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance of CT and MRI for abdominal staging of pediatric renal tumors: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatric Radiology. 45(2):166-72, 2015 Feb. | |
| 30. | Mohd Zaki F, Moineddin R, Grant R, Chavhan GB. Accuracy of pre-contrast imaging in abdominal magnetic resonance imaging of pediatric oncology patients. Pediatric Radiology. 46(12):1684-1693, 2016 Nov. | |
| 31. | Kaste SC, Snyder SE, Metzger ML, et al. Comparison of 11C-Methionine and 18F-FDG PET/CT for Staging and Follow-up of Pediatric Lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2017 Mar;58(3):419-424. | |
| 32. | Sher AC, Seghers V, Paldino MJ, et al. Assessment of Sequential PET/MRI in Comparison With PET/CT of Pediatric Lymphoma: A Prospective Study. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 206(3):623-31, 2016 Mar.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 206(3):623-31, 2016 Mar. | |
| 33. | Aghighi M, Pisani LJ, Sun Z, et al. Speeding up PET/MR for cancer staging of children and young adults. Eur Radiol. 2016 Dec;26(12):4239-4248. | |
| 34. | Wang P, Li T, Liu Z, et al. [18F]MFBG PET/CT outperforming [123I]MIBG SPECT/CT in the evaluation of neuroblastoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging. 50(10):3097-3106, 2023 08. | |
| 35. | Cerny I, Prasek J, Kasparkova H. Superiority of SPECT/CT over planar 123I-mIBG images in neuroblastoma patients with impact on Curie and SIOPEN score values. Nuclear-Medizin. 55(4):151-7, 2016 Aug 05. | |
| 36. | Bardi E, Csoka M, Garai I, et al. Value of FDG-PET/CT examinations in different cancers of children, focusing on lymphomas. Pathol Oncol Res. 20(1):139-43, 2014 Jan. | |
| 37. | Choi YJ, Hwang HS, Kim HJ, et al. (18)F-FDG PET as a single imaging modality in pediatric neuroblastoma: comparison with abdomen CT and bone scintigraphy. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 28(4):304-13, 2014 May. | |
| 38. | Uslu L, Donig J, Link M, Rosenberg J, Quon A, Daldrup-Link HE. Value of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for evaluation of pediatric malignancies. [Review]. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 56(2):274-86, 2015 Feb. | |
| 39. | Liu CJ, Lu MY, Liu YL, et al. Risk Stratification of Pediatric Patients With Neuroblastoma Using Volumetric Parameters of 18F-FDG and 18F-DOPA PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2017 Mar;42(3):e142-e148. | |
| 40. | Cerci JJ, Etchebehere EC, Nadel H, et al. Is True Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET/CT Required in Pediatric Lymphoma? An IAEA Multicenter Prospective Study. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 60(8):1087-1093, 2019 Aug. | |
| 41. | Sung AJ, Weiss BD, Sharp SE, Zhang B, Trout AT. Prognostic significance of pretreatment 18F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography in pediatric neuroblastoma. Pediatric Radiology. 51(8):1400-1405, 2021 Jul. | |
| 42. | Li Z, Li C, Chen B, et al. FDG-PET/CT versus bone marrow biopsy in bone marrow involvement in newly diagnosed paediatric lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery. 16(1):482, 2021 Aug 09. |
Disclaimer
| The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination. |