Palpable Abdominal Mass-Suspected Neoplasm

Variant: 1 Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy contrast enema	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series with small bowel follow-through	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Fluoroscopy contrast enema	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series with small bowel follow-through	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.
A. CT Abdomen

Variant 1: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.
B. US Abdomen

Variant 1: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.
C. MRI Abdomen

Variant 1: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.
D. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 1: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.
E. Fluoroscopy Procedures (Contrast Enema, Upper GI Series, Small-Bowel Follow-Through)

Variant 1: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected intra-abdominal neoplasm. Initial imaging.
F. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.
A. US Abdomen

Variant 2: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.
B. MRI Abdomen

Variant 2: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.
C. CT Abdomen

Variant 2: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.
E. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 2: Palpable abdominal mass. Suspected abdominal wall mass. Initial imaging.
F. Fluoroscopy Procedures (Contrast Enema, Upper GI Series, Small-Bowel Follow-Through)

Summary of Recommendations

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.

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

References

1.	Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Soft-Tissue Masses. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 May;15(5S):S1546-1440(18)30337-5.
2.	Reis SP, Majdalany BS, AbuRahma AF, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pulsatile Abdominal Mass Suspected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S258-S65.
3.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Clinically Suspected Adnexal Mass. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69466/Narrative/.
4.	Makni A, Jouini M, Kacem M, Safta ZB. Extra-hepatic intra-abdominal hydatid cyst: which characteristic, compared to the hepatic location?. Updates Surg. 65(1):25-33, 2013 Mar.
5.	Tarcoveanu E, Moldovanu R, Bradea C, Vlad N, Ciobanu D, Vasilescu A. Laparoscopic Treatment of Intraabdominal Cystic Lymphangioma. Chirurgia (Bucur). 111(3):236-41, 2016 May-Jun.
6.	Zhou Z, Zhou J, Wu Z, Peng B. Laparoscopic splenectomy for adult lymphangiomas of the spleen: case series and review of literature. Hepatogastroenterology. 61(130):285-90, 2014 Mar-Apr.
7.	Zhu QQ, Zhu WR, Wu JT, Chen WX, Wang SA. Comparative study of intestinal tuberculosis and primary small intestinal lymphoma. World J Gastroenterol. 20(15):4446-52, 2014 Apr 21.
8.	Dixon AK, Fry IK, Kingham JG, McLean AM, White FE. Computed tomography in patients with an abdominal mass: effective and efficient? A controlled trial. Lancet. 1981;1(8231):1199-1201.
9.	Williams MP, Scott IH, Dixon AK. Computed tomography in 101 patients with a palpable abdominal mass. Clin Radiol. 1984;35(4):293-296.
10.	Roberts AS, Shetty AS, Mellnick VM, Pickhardt PJ, Bhalla S, Menias CO. Extramedullary haematopoiesis: radiological imaging features. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 71(9):807-14, 2016 Sep.
11.	Lipnik AJ, Brown DB. Image-Guided Percutaneous Abdominal Mass Biopsy: Technical and Clinical Considerations. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 53(5):1049-59, 2015 Sep.
12.	Sainani NI, Arellano RS, Shyn PB, Gervais DA, Mueller PR, Silverman SG. The challenging image-guided abdominal mass biopsy: established and emerging techniques 'if you can see it, you can biopsy it'. [Review]. Abdom Imaging. 38(4):672-96, 2013 Aug.
13.	Vanoeteren X, Devreese K, De Munter P. Abdominal actinomycosis: a rare complication after cholecystectomy. Acta Clin Belg. 69(2):152-6, 2014 Apr.
14.	Blake MA, Kalra MK, Sweeney AT, et al. Distinguishing benign from malignant adrenal masses: multi-detector row CT protocol with 10-minute delay. Radiology. 238(2):578-85, 2006 Feb.
15.	Love L, Malone A, Churchill R, et al. Intravenous contrast bolus in computed tomography investigation of mass lesion. Diagn Imaging Clin Med. 53(2):57-66, 1984.
16.	Aspelin P, Hildell J, Karlsson S, Sigurjonson S. Ultrasonic evaluation of palpable abdominal masses. Acta Chir Scand. 1980;146(7):501-506.
17.	Barker CS, Lindsell DR. Ultrasound of the palpable abdominal mass. Clin Radiol. 1990;41(2):98-99.
18.	Colquhoun IR, Saywell WR, Dewbury KC. An analysis of referrals for primary diagnostic abdominal ultrasound to a general X-ray department. British Journal of Radiology. 61(724):297-300, 1988 Apr.
19.	Holm HH, Gammelgaard J, Jensen F, Smith EH, Hillman BJ. Ultrasound in the diagnosis of a palpable abdominal mass. A prospective study of 107 patients. Gastrointest Radiol. 1982;7(2):149-151.
20.	Annuar Z, Sakijan AS, Annuar N, Kooi GH. Ultrasound in the diagnosis of palpable abdominal masses in children. Med J Malaysia. 1990;45(4):281-287.
21.	White M, Stella J. Ovarian torsion: 10-year perspective. Emerg Med Australas. 2005;17(3):231-237.
22.	Arishenkoff S, Eddy C, Roberts JM, et al. Accuracy of Spleen Measurement by Medical Residents Using Hand-Carried Ultrasound. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 34(12):2203-7, 2015 Dec.
23.	Colli A, Prati D, Fraquelli M, et al. The use of a pocket-sized ultrasound device improves physical examination: results of an in- and outpatient cohort study. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 10(3):e0122181, 2015.
24.	Atamanalp SS. Sigmoid volvulus: diagnosis in 938 patients over 45.5 years. Techniques in Coloproctology. 17(4):419-24, 2013 Aug.
25.	Baleato-Gonzalez S, Vilanova JC, Garcia-Figueiras R, Juez IB, Martinez de Alegria A. Intussusception in adults: what radiologists should know. Emerg Radiol. 2012;19(2):89-101.
26.	Chang CJ, Hsieh TH, Tsai KC, Fan CM. Sigmoid volvulus in a young woman nearly misdiagnosed as fecal impaction. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(3):611-613.
27.	Osiro SB, Cunningham D, Shoja MM, Tubbs RS, Gielecki J, Loukas M. The twisted colon: a review of sigmoid volvulus. Am Surg. 2012;78(3):271-279.
28.	Patel DR, Levine MS, Rubesin SE, Zafar H, Lev-Toaff AS. Comparison of small bowel follow through and abdominal CT for detecting recurrent Crohn's disease in neoterminal ileum. Eur J Radiol. 82(3):464-71, 2013 Mar.
29.	Williams KJ, Hayes AJ. A guide to oncological management of soft tissue tumours of the abdominal wall. [Review]. Hernia. 18(1):91-7, 2014 Feb.
30.	Bashir U, Moskovic E, Strauss D, et al. Soft-tissue masses in the abdominal wall. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 69(10):e422-31, 2014 Oct.
31.	Lakkaraju A, Sinha R, Garikipati R, Edward S, Robinson P. Ultrasound for initial evaluation and triage of clinically suspicious soft-tissue masses. Clin Radiol. 64(6):615-21, 2009 Jun.
32.	Ahn SE, Park SJ, Moon SK, Lee DH, Lim JW. Sonography of Abdominal Wall Masses and Masslike Lesions: Correlation With Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 35(1):189-208, 2016 Jan.
33.	Mostafa HA, Saad JH, Nadeem Z, Alharbi F. Rectus abdominis endometriosis. A descriptive analysis of 10 cases concerning this rare occurrence. Saudi Med J. 34(10):1035-42, 2013 Oct.
34.	Smithson A, Ruiz J, Perello R, Valverde M, Ramos J, Garzo L. Diagnostic and management of spontaneous rectus sheath hematoma. EUR. J. INTERN. MED.. 24(6):579-82, 2013 Sep.
35.	Solak A, Sahin N, Genc B, Sever AR, Genc M, Sivrikoz ON. Diagnostic value of susceptibility-weighted imaging of abdominal wall endometriomas during the cyclic menstrual changes: a preliminary study. Eur J Radiol. 82(9):e411-6, 2013 Sep.
36.	Zhang J, Liu X. Clinicopathological features of endometriosis in abdominal wall--clinical analysis of 151 cases. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 43(3):379-83, 2016.
37.	Otero S, Moskovic EC, Strauss DC, et al. Desmoid-type fibromatosis. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 70(9):1038-45, 2015 Sep.
38.	Virmani V, Sethi V, Fasih N, Ryan J, Kielar A. The abdominal wall lumps and bumps: cross-sectional imaging spectrum. [Review]. Can Assoc Radiol J. 65(1):9-18, 2014 Feb.
39.	Rindos NB, Mansuria S. Diagnosis and Management of Abdominal Wall Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Clinical Recommendations. [Review]. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 72(2):116-122, 2017 Feb.
40.	Gaskin CM, Helms CA. Lipomas, lipoma variants, and well-differentiated liposarcomas (atypical lipomas): results of MRI evaluations of 126 consecutive fatty masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 182(3):733-9, 2004 Mar.
41.	Jaffe TA, O'Connell MJ, Harris JP, Paulson EK, Delong DM. MDCT of abdominal wall hernias: is there a role for valsalva's maneuver? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:847-51.
42.	Gayer G, Park C. Abdominal Wall Masses: CT Findings and Clues to Differential Diagnosis. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 39(2):230-246, 2018 Apr.
43.	Yarmish G, Sala E, Goldman DA, et al. Abdominal wall endometriosis: differentiation from other masses using CT features. Abdom Radiol. 42(5):1517-1523, 2017 05.
44.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

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.