Plexopathy

Variant: 1 Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI brachial plexus without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI brachial plexus without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT neck with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US neck	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI brachial plexus with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT cervical spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT cervical spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT cervical spine without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT myelography cervical spine	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI lumbosacral plexus without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI lumbosacral plexus without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI lumbar spine without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI lumbar spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI lumbar spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI lumbosacral plexus with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT myelography lumbar spine	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI brachial plexus without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI brachial plexus without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT cervical spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT myelography cervical spine	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US neck	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI brachial plexus with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT cervical spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT cervical spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI lumbosacral plexus without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI lumbosacral plexus without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI lumbar spine without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI lumbar spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT myelography lumbar spine	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI lumbar spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI lumbosacral plexus with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT lumbar spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 5 Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI brachial plexus without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI brachial plexus without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT neck with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT neck without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US neck	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI brachial plexus with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI cervical spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT cervical spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT cervical spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT cervical spine without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT myelography cervical spine	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 6 Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI lumbosacral plexus without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI lumbosacral plexus without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI lumbar spine without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI lumbar spine without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI lumbar spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI lumbosacral plexus with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT lumbar spine without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT myelography lumbar spine	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Daniel J. Boulter, MD^a; Joici Job, MD^b; Lubdha M. Shah, MD^c; Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhD^d; Leon Lenchik, MD^e; Matthew S. Parsons, MD^f; Vikas Agarwal, MD^g; Marc Appel, MD^h; Judah Burns, MDⁱ; Troy A. Hutchins, MD^j; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MD^k; Majid A. Khan, MD, MBBS^l; David S. Liebeskind, MD^m; Toshio Moritani, MD, PhDⁿ; A. Orlando Ortiz, MD, MBA^o; Vinil N. Shah, MD^p; Simranjit Singh, MD^q; Khoi D. Than, MD^r; Vincent M. Timpone, MD^s; Francesca D. Beaman, MD^t; Amanda S. Corey, MD^u.

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 (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., 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: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
A. CT Myelography Cervical Spine

Variant 1: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
B. CT Neck

Variant 1: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
C. CT Cervical Spine

Variant 1: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 1: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Brachial Plexus

Variant 1: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Cervical Spine

Variant 1: Brachial plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
G. US Neck

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
A. CT Myelography Lumbar Spine

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
C. CT Lumbar Spine

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Lumbar Spine

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Lumbosacral Plexus

Variant 2: Lumbosacral plexopathy, acute or chronic, nontraumatic. No known malignancy. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Pelvis

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.
A. CT Myelography Cervical Spine

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.
B. CT Cervical Spine

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.
C. CT Neck

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.
E. MRI Brachial Plexus

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.
F. MRI Cervical Spine

Variant 3: Brachial plexopathy, traumatic (not perinatal). Initial imaging.
G. US Neck

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.
A. CT Myelography Lumbar Spine

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.
C. CT Lumbar Spine

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Lumbar Spine

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Lumbosacral Plexus

Variant 4: Lumbosacral plexopathy, traumatic. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Pelvis

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
A. CT Myelography Cervical Spine

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
B. CT Neck

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
C. CT Cervical Spine

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Brachial Plexus

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Cervical Spine

Variant 5: Brachial plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
G. US Neck

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
A. CT Myelography Lumbar Spine

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
C. CT Lumbar Spine

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Lumbar Spine

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Lumbosacral Plexus

Variant 6: Lumbosacral plexopathy, known malignancy or post-treatment syndrome. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Pelvis

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.

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.	Daniels SP, Feinberg JH, Carrino JA, Behzadi AH, Sneag DB. MRI of Foot Drop: How We Do It. [Review]. Radiology. 289(1):9-24, 2018 10.
2.	Delaney H, Bencardino J, Rosenberg ZS. Magnetic resonance neurography of the pelvis and lumbosacral plexus. [Review]. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 24(1):127-50, 2014 Feb.
3.	Robbins NM, Shah V, Benedetti N, Talbott JF, Chin CT, Douglas VC. Magnetic resonance neurography in the diagnosis of neuropathies of the lumbosacral plexus: a pictorial review. [Review]. Clinical Imaging. 40(6):1118-1130, 2016 Nov - Dec.
4.	Soldatos T, Andreisek G, Thawait GK, et al. High-resolution 3-T MR neurography of the lumbosacral plexus. Radiographics 2013;33:967-87.
5.	Tharin BD, Kini JA, York GE, Ritter JL. Brachial plexopathy: a review of traumatic and nontraumatic causes. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(1):W67-75, 2014 Jan.
6.	Mallouhi A, Marik W, Prayer D, Kainberger F, Bodner G, Kasprian G. 3T MR tomography of the brachial plexus: structural and microstructural evaluation. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2231-45.
7.	Muniz Neto FJ, Kihara Filho EN, Miranda FC, Rosemberg LA, Santos DCB, Taneja AK. Demystifying MR Neurography of the Lumbosacral Plexus: From Protocols to Pathologies. [Review]. Biomed Res Int. 2018:9608947, 2018.
8.	Neufeld EA, Shen PY, Nidecker AE, et al. MR Imaging of the Lumbosacral Plexus: A Review of Techniques and Pathologies. [Review]. Journal of Neuroimaging. 25(5):691-703, 2015 Sep-Oct.
9.	Torres C, Mailley K, Del Carpio O'Donovan R. MRI of the brachial plexus: modified imaging technique leading to a better characterization of its anatomy and pathology. The neuroradiology journal 2013;26:699-719.
10.	Upadhyaya V, Upadhyaya DN. Current status of magnetic resonance neurography in evaluating patients with brachial plexopathy. Neurol India. 67(Supplement):S118-S124, 2019 Jan-Feb.
11.	McDonald MA, Kirsch CFE, Amin BY, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Cervical Neck Pain or Cervical Radiculopathy. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S57-S76.
12.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Low Back Pain. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69483/Narrative/.
13.	Zurkiya O, Ganguli S, Kalva SP, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S323-S34.
14.	Chhabra A, Thawait GK, Soldatos T, et al. High-resolution 3T MR neurography of the brachial plexus and its branches, with emphasis on 3D imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:486-97.
15.	Ishikawa T, Asakura K, Mizutani Y, et al. MR neurography for the evaluation of CIDP. Muscle Nerve. 55(4):483-489, 2017 04.
16.	Murtz P, Kaschner M, Lakghomi A, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR neurography of the brachial and lumbosacral plexus: 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging. Eur J Radiol. 84(4):696-702, 2015 Apr.
17.	Oudeman J, Coolen BF, Mazzoli V, et al. Diffusion-prepared neurography of the brachial plexus with a large field-of-view at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 43(3):644-54, 2016 Mar.
18.	Wang X, Harrison C, Mariappan YK, et al. MR Neurography of Brachial Plexus at 3.0 T with Robust Fat and Blood Suppression. Radiology. 283(2):538-546, 2017 05.
19.	Yoneyama M, Takahara T, Kwee TC, Nakamura M, Tabuchi T. Rapid high resolution MR neurography with a diffusion-weighted pre-pulse. Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2013;12:111-9.
20.	Yuh EL, Jain Palrecha S, Lagemann GM, et al. Diffusivity measurements differentiate benign from malignant lesions in patients with peripheral neuropathy or plexopathy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 36(1):202-9, 2015 Jan.
21.	Tagliafico A, Succio G, Emanuele Neumaier C, et al. MR imaging of the brachial plexus: comparison between 1.5-T and 3-T MR imaging: preliminary experience. Skeletal Radiol. 2011; 40(6):717-724.
22.	Tagliafico A, Succio G, Neumaier CE, et al. Brachial plexus assessment with three-dimensional isotropic resolution fast spin echo MRI: comparison with conventional MRI at 3.0 T. Br J Radiol 2012;85:e110-6.
23.	Ho MJ, Ciritsis A, Manoliu A, et al. Diffusion Tensor Imaging of the Brachial Plexus: A Comparison between Readout-segmented and Conventional Single-shot Echo-planar Imaging. Magn. reson. med. sci.. 18(2):150-157, 2019 Apr 10.
24.	Ho MJ, Manoliu A, Kuhn FP, et al. Evaluation of Reproducibility of Diffusion Tensor Imaging in the Brachial Plexus at 3.0 T. Invest Radiol. 52(8):482-487, 2017 08.
25.	Tagliafico A, Calabrese M, Puntoni M, et al. Brachial plexus MR imaging: accuracy and reproducibility of DTI-derived measurements and fibre tractography at 3.0-T. Eur Radiol 2011;21:1764-71.
26.	Vargas MI, Viallon M, Nguyen D, Delavelle J, Becker M. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and tractography of the brachial plexus: feasibility and initial experience in neoplastic conditions. Neuroradiology. 2010; 52(3):237-245.
27.	Lutz AM, Gold G, Beaulieu C. MR imaging of the brachial plexus. [Review]. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 24(1):91-108, 2014 Feb.
28.	Gilcrease-Garcia MS, Deshmukh SD, Parson MS. Unperplexing the Brachial Plexus: Anatomy, Imaging, and Disease. Radiographics 2020:[E-pub ahead of print].
29.	Gwathmey KG.. Plexus and peripheral nerve metastasis. [Review]. Handb. clin. neurol.. 149:257-279, 2018.
30.	Lieba-Samal D, Jengojan S, Kasprian G, Wober C, Bodner G. Neuroimaging of classic neuralgic amyotrophy. Muscle Nerve. 54(6):1079-1085, 2016 12.
31.	Sneag DB, Rancy SK, Wolfe SW, et al. Brachial plexitis or neuritis? MRI features of lesion distribution in Parsonage-Turner syndrome. Muscle Nerve. 58(3):359-366, 2018 09.
32.	Sneag DB, Saltzman EB, Meister DW, Feinberg JH, Lee SK, Wolfe SW. MRI bullseye sign: An indicator of peripheral nerve constriction in parsonage-turner syndrome. Muscle Nerve. 56(1):99-106, 2017 07.
33.	Adachi Y, Sato N, Okamoto T, et al. Brachial and lumbar plexuses in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: MRI assessment including apparent diffusion coefficient. Neuroradiology. 2011; 53(1):3-11.
34.	Basta I, Nikolic A, Apostolski S, et al. Diagnostic value of combined magnetic resonance imaging examination of brachial plexus and electrophysiological studies in multifocal motor neuropathy. Vojnosanit Pregl. 71(8):723-9, 2014 Aug.
35.	Goedee HS, Jongbloed BA, van Asseldonk JH, et al. A comparative study of brachial plexus sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy and multifocal motor neuropathy. Eur J Neurol. 24(10):1307-1313, 2017 10.
36.	Hiwatashi A, Togao O, Yamashita K, et al. Evaluation of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: 3D nerve-sheath signal increased with inked rest-tissue rapid acquisition of relaxation enhancement imaging (3D SHINKEI). Eur Radiol. 27(2):447-453, 2017 Feb.
37.	Jongbloed BA, Bos JW, Rutgers D, van der Pol WL, van den Berg LH. Brachial plexus magnetic resonance imaging differentiates between inflammatory neuropathies and does not predict disease course. Brain Behav. 7(5):e00632, 2017 05.
38.	Lozeron P, Lacour MC, Vandendries C, et al. Contribution of plexus MRI in the diagnosis of atypical chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies. J Neurol Sci. 360:170-5, 2016 Jan 15.
39.	Goedee SH, Brekelmans GJ, van den Berg LH, Visser LH. Distinctive patterns of sonographic nerve enlargement in Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A and hereditary neuropathy with pressure palsies. Clin Neurophysiol. 126(7):1413-20, 2015 Jul.
40.	Jones LK Jr, Reda H, Watson JC. Clinical, electrophysiologic, and imaging features of zoster-associated limb paresis. Muscle Nerve. 50(2):177-85, 2014 Aug.
41.	Liu Y, Wu BY, Ma ZS, et al. A retrospective case series of segmental zoster paresis of limbs: clinical, electrophysiological and imaging characteristics. BMC Neurol. 18(1):121, 2018 Aug 21.
42.	Zubair AS, Hunt C, Watson J, Nelson A, Jones LK Jr. Imaging Findings in Patients with Zoster-Associated Plexopathy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 38(6):1248-1251, 2017 Jun.
43.	Lee JH, Cheng KL, Choi YJ, Baek JH. High-resolution Imaging of Neural Anatomy and Pathology of the Neck. [Review]. Korean J Radiol. 18(1):180-193, 2017 Jan-Feb.
44.	Tagliafico A, Succio G, Serafini G, Martinoli C. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in adults with suspect brachial plexus lesions: A multicentre retrospective study with surgical findings and clinical follow-up as reference standard. Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81(10):2666-2672.
45.	Du R, Auguste KI, Chin CT, Engstrom JW, Weinstein PR. Magnetic resonance neurography for the evaluation of peripheral nerve, brachial plexus, and nerve root disorders. J Neurosurg. 2010; 112(2):362-371.
46.	Hilgenfeld T, Jende J, Schwarz D, et al. Somatotopic Fascicular Lesions of the Brachial Plexus Demonstrated by High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Neurography. Invest Radiol. 52(12):741-746, 2017 12.
47.	Crim J, Ingalls K. Accuracy of MR neurography in the diagnosis of brachial plexopathy. Eur J Radiol. 95:24-27, 2017 Oct.
48.	Mostofi K, Khouzani RK. Reliability of cervical radiculopathy, its congruence between patient history and medical imaging evidence of disc herniation and its role in surgical decision. Eur. j. orthop. surg. traumatol.. 26(7):805-8, 2016 Oct.
49.	Yoshida T, Sueyoshi T, Suwazono S, Suehara M. Three-tesla magnetic resonance neurography of the brachial plexus in cervical radiculopathy. Muscle Nerve. 52(3):392-6, 2015 Sep.
50.	Griffith JF. Ultrasound of the Brachial Plexus. [Review]. Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology. 22(3):323-333, 2018 Jul.
51.	Aranyi Z, Csillik A, Devay K, et al. Ultrasonographic identification of nerve pathology in neuralgic amyotrophy: Enlargement, constriction, fascicular entwinement, and torsion. Muscle Nerve. 52(4):503-11, 2015 Oct.
52.	Goedee HS, van der Pol WL, van Asseldonk JH, et al. Diagnostic value of sonography in treatment-naive chronic inflammatory neuropathies. Neurology. 88(2):143-151, 2017 Jan 10.
53.	Gruber L, Loizides A, Loscher W, Glodny B, Gruber H. Focused high-resolution sonography of the suprascapular nerve: A simple surrogate marker for neuralgic amyotrophy?. Clinical Neurophysiology. 128(8):1438-1444, 2017 08.
54.	Herraets IJT, Goedee HS, Telleman JA, et al. High-resolution ultrasound in patients with Wartenberg's migrant sensory neuritis, a case-control study. Clin Neurophysiol. 129(1):232-237, 2018 01.
55.	van Rosmalen M, Lieba-Samal D, Pillen S, van Alfen N. Ultrasound of peripheral nerves in neuralgic amyotrophy. Muscle Nerve. 59(1):55-59, 2019 01.
56.	Chazen JL, Cornman-Homonoff J, Zhao Y, Sein M, Feuer N. MR Neurography of the Lumbosacral Plexus for Lower Extremity Radiculopathy: Frequency of Findings, Characteristics of Abnormal Intraneural Signal, and Correlation with Electromyography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 39(11):2154-2160, 2018 11.
57.	Eastlack J, Tenorio L, Wadhwa V, Scott K, Starr A, Chhabra A. Sciatic neuromuscular variants on MR neurography: frequency study and interobserver performance. Br J Radiol. 90(1079):20170116, 2017 Nov.
58.	Zhang X, Li M, Guan J, et al. Evaluation of the sacral nerve plexus in pelvic endometriosis by three-dimensional MR neurography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 45(4):1225-1231, 2017 04.
59.	Hiwatashi A, Togao O, Yamashita K, et al. Lumbar plexus in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Evaluation with 3D nerve-sheath signal increased with inked rest-tissue rapid acquisition of relaxation enhancement imaging (3D SHINKEI). Eur J Radiol. 93:95-99, 2017 Aug.
60.	Hiwatashi A, Togao O, Yamashita K, et al. Lumbar plexus in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: evaluation with simultaneous T2 mapping and neurography method with SHINKEI. Br J Radiol. 91(1092):20180501, 2018 Dec.
61.	Chhabra A, Rozen S, Scott K. Three-dimensional MR neurography of the lumbosacral plexus. [Review]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 19(2):149-59, 2015 Apr.
62.	Dessouky R, Xi Y, Scott KM, et al. Magnetic Resonance Neurography in Chronic Lumbosacral and Pelvic Pain: Diagnostic and Management Impact-Institutional Audit. World Neurosurgery. 114:e77-e113, 2018 Jun.World Neurosurg. 114:e77-e113, 2018 Jun.
63.	Zhang Z, Song L, Meng Q, et al. Morphological analysis in patients with sciatica: a magnetic resonance imaging study using three-dimensional high-resolution diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance neurography techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(7):E245-250.
64.	Petrasic JR, Chhabra A, Scott KM. Impact of MR Neurography in Patients with Chronic Cauda Equina Syndrome Presenting as Chronic Pelvic Pain and Dysfunction. Ajnr: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 38(2):418-422, 2017 Feb.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 38(2):418-422, 2017 Feb.
65.	Beckmann NM, West OC, Nunez D, Jr., et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Spine Trauma. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S264-S85.
66.	Wade RG, Takwoingi Y, Wormald JCR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for detecting root avulsions in traumatic adult brachial plexus injuries: protocol for a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy. [Review]. Syst. rev.. 7(1):76, 2018 05 19.
67.	Chin B, Ramji M, Farrokhyar F, Bain JR. Efficient Imaging: Examining the Value of Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Traumatic Adult Brachial Plexus Injuries, A Systematic Review. Neurosurgery. 83(3):323-332, 2018 09 01.
68.	Park HR, Lee GS, Kim IS, Chang J-C. Brachial Plexus Injury in Adults. The Nerve 2017;3:1-11.
69.	Fuzari HKB, Dornelas de Andrade A, Vilar CF, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in post-traumatic brachial plexus injuries: A systematic review. Clinical Neurology & Neurosurgery. 164:5-10, 2018 01.
70.	Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF. Use of clinical signs and computed tomography myelography findings in detecting and excluding nerve root avulsion in complete brachial plexus palsy. J Neurosurg. 2006; 105(6):835-842.
71.	Wade RG, Itte V, Rankine JJ, Ridgway JP, Bourke G. The diagnostic accuracy of 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging for detecting root avulsions in traumatic adult brachial plexus injuries. J. hand surg., Eur. vol.. 43(3):250-258, 2018 Mar.
72.	Frueh FS, Ho M, Schiller A, et al. Magnetic Resonance Neurographic and Clinical Long-Term Results After Oberlin's Transfer for Adult Brachial Plexus Injuries. Ann Plast Surg. 78(1):67-72, 2017 Jan.
73.	Zhu YS, Mu NN, Zheng MJ, et al. High-resolution ultrasonography for the diagnosis of brachial plexus root lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 40(7):1420-6, 2014 Jul.
74.	Shyu JY, Khurana B, Soto JA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Major Blunt Trauma. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S160-S74.
75.	Heller MT, Oto A, Allen BC, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Penetrating Trauma-Lower Abdomen and Pelvis. [Review]. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 16(11S):S392-S398, 2019 Nov.J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 16(11S):S392-S398, 2019 Nov.
76.	Kamiya-Matsuoka C, Shroff S, Gildersleeve K, Hormozdi B, Manning JT, Woodman KH. Neurolymphomatosis: a case series of clinical manifestations, treatments, and outcomes. J Neurol Sci. 343(1-2):144-8, 2014 Aug 15.
77.	Expert Panel on Breast Imaging:, Slanetz PJ, Moy L, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(11S):S462-S475, 2017 Nov.
78.	de Groot PM, Chung JH, Ackman JB, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Noninvasive Clinical Staging of Primary Lung Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S184-S95.
79.	Cai Z, Li Y, Hu Z, et al. Radiation-induced brachial plexopathy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study. Oncotarget. 7(14):18887-95, 2016 Apr 05.
80.	Gu B, Yang Z, Huang S, et al. Radiation-induced brachial plexus injury after radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 44(8):736-42, 2014 Aug.
81.	Kultur T, Okumus M, Inal M, Yalcin S. Evaluation of the Brachial Plexus With Shear Wave Elastography After Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 37(8):2029-2035, 2018 Aug.
82.	Chandra P, Purandare N, Agrawal A, Shah S, Rangarajan V. Clinical Utility of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in brachial plexopathy secondary to metastatic breast cancer. Indian J Nucl Med 2016;31:123-7.
83.	Zheng M, Zhu Y, Zhou X, Chen S, Cong R, Chen D. Diagnosis of closed injury and neoplasm of the brachial plexus by ultrasonography. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound. 42(7):417-22, 2014 Sep.
84.	Capek S, Howe BM, Amrami KK, Spinner RJ. Perineural spread of pelvic malignancies to the lumbosacral plexus and beyond: clinical and imaging patterns. Neurosurg. focus. 39(3):E14, 2015 Sep.
85.	Jacobs JJ, Capek S, Spinner RJ, Swanson KR. Mathematical model of perineural tumor spread: a pilot study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 160(3):655-661, 2018 03.
86.	Fowler KJ, Kaur H, Cash BD, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria((R)) Pretreatment Staging of Colorectal Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S234-S44.
87.	Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging:, Coakley FV, Oto A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Prostate Cancer-Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging. [Review]. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(5S):S245-S257, 2017 May.
88.	Froemming AT, Verma S, Eberhardt SC, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Post-treatment Follow-up Prostate Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S132-S49.
89.	Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging:, van der Pol CB, Sahni VA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Pretreatment Staging of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 15(5S):S150-S159, 2018 May.
90.	Allen BC, Oto A, Akin O, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Post-Treatment Surveillance of Bladder Cancer. [Review]. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 16(11S):S417-S427, 2019 Nov.J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 16(11S):S417-S427, 2019 Nov.
91.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Pretreatment Evaluation and Follow-Up of Endometrial Cancer. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69459/Narrative/.
92.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Pretreatment Planning of Invasive Cancer of the Cervix. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69461/Narrative/.
93.	Kang SK, Reinhold C, Atri M, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Staging and Follow-Up of Ovarian Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S198-S207.
94.	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.