Epigastric Pain

Variant: 1 Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Fluoroscopy biphasic esophagram	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	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 Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy biphasic esophagram	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	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: 3 Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Fluoroscopy biphasic esophagram	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluoroscopy upper GI series	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	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	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	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

Abhinav Vij, MD, MPH^a; Atif Zaheer, MD^b; Ihab R. Kamel, MD, PhD^c; Kristin K. Porter, MD, PhD^d; Hina Arif-Tiwari, MD^e; Mustafa R. Bashir, MD^f; Alice Fung, MD, BA^g; Alan Goldstein, MD^h; Keith D. Herr, MDⁱ; Aya Kamaya, MD^j; Mariya Kobi, MD^k; Matthew P. Landler, MD^l; Gregory K. Russo, MD^m; Kiran H. Thakrar, MDⁿ; Michael A. Turturro, MD^o; Shaun A. Wahab, MD^p; Richard M. Wardrop III, MD, PhD^q; Chadwick L. Wright, MD, PhD^r; Xihua Yang, MD^s; Laura R. Carucci, MD^t.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

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: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
C. CT Abdomen Multiphase

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
E. Fluoroscopy Biphasic Esophagram

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
F. Fluoroscopy Single-Contrast Esophagram

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
G. Fluoroscopy Upper GI Series

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
H. MRI Abdomen

Variant 1: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for acid reflux or esophagitis or gastritis or peptic ulcer or duodenal ulcer. Initial imaging.
I. MRI Abdomen with MRCP

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
C. CT Abdomen Multiphase

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
E. Fluoroscopy biphasic esophagram

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
F. Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
G. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
H. MRI abdomen

Variant 2: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for gastric cancer. Initial imaging.
I. MRI abdomen with MRCP

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen multiphase

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
E. Fluoroscopy biphasic esophagram

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
F. Fluoroscopy single contrast esophagram

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
G. Fluoroscopy upper GI series

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
H. MRI abdomen

Variant 3: Epigastric pain with clinical suspicion for hiatal hernia. Initial imaging.
I. MRI abdomen with MRCP

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.	Akers SR, Panchal V, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Chest Pain-High Probability of Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5S):S1546-1440(17)30141-2.
2.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Acute Chest Pain-Suspected Aortic Dissection. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69402/Narrative/.
3.	Guniganti P, Bradenham CH, Raptis C, Menias CO, Mellnick VM. CT of Gastric Emergencies. Radiographics. 2015;35(7):1909-21.
4.	Baghdanian AH, Baghdanian AA, Puppala S, Tana M, Ohliger MA. Imaging Manifestations of Peptic Ulcer Disease on Computed Tomography. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 39(2):183-192, 2018 Apr.
5.	Lambert L, Grusova G, Burgetova A, Matras P, Lambertova A, Kuchynka P. The predictive value of computed tomography in the detection of reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Clin Imaging. 49:97-100, 2018 May - Jun.
6.	Kitchin DR, Lubner MG, Menias CO, Santillan CS, Pickhardt PJ. MDCT diagnosis of gastroduodenal ulcers: key imaging features with endoscopic correlation. [Review]. Abdom Imaging. 40(2):360-84, 2015 Feb.
7.	Jobe BA, Richter JE, Hoppo T, et al. Preoperative diagnostic workup before antireflux surgery: an evidence and experience-based consensus of the Esophageal Diagnostic Advisory Panel. J Am Coll Surg. 217(4):586-97, 2013 Oct.
8.	Tsai MK, Ding HJ, Lai HC, et al. Detection of gastroesophageal reflux esophagitis using 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012:702803, 2012.
9.	Moosavi A, Raji H, Teimoori M, Ghourchian S. Air column in esophagus and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. BMC med. imaging. 12:2, 2012 Jan 25.
10.	Levine MS, Rubesin SE. Diseases of the esophagus: diagnosis with esophagography. [Review] [78 refs]. Radiology. 237(2):414-27, 2005 Nov.
11.	Batlle JC, Kirsch J, Bolen MA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chest Pain-Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S55-S69.
12.	Porter KK, Zaheer A, Kamel IR, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pancreatitis. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S316-S30.
13.	Creteur V, Thoeni RF, Federle MP, et al. The role of single and double-contrast radiography in the diagnosis of reflux esophagitis. Radiology. 147(1):71-5, 1983 Apr.
14.	Koehler RE, Weyman PJ, Oakley HF. Single- and double-contrast techniques in esophagitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 135(1):15-9, 1980 Jul.
15.	Rubesin SE, Levine MS, Laufer I. Double-contrast upper gastrointestinal radiography: a pattern approach for diseases of the stomach. [Review] [104 refs]. Radiology. 246(1):33-48, 2008 Jan.
16.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Nontraumatic Aortic Disease. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3082597/Narrative/.
17.	National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Cancer Stat Facts: Stomach Cancer. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html.
18.	Millet I, Doyon FC, Pages E, Faget C, Zins M, Taourel P. CT of gastro-duodenal obstruction. [Review]. Abdom Imaging. 40(8):3265-73, 2015 Oct.
19.	Lee D, Park MH, Shin BS, Jeon GS. Multidetector CT diagnosis of non-traumatic gastroduodenal perforation. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016 Apr;60(2):182-6.
20.	Dean C, Etienne D, Carpentier B, Gielecki J, Tubbs RS, Loukas M. Hiatal hernias. [Review]. Surg Radiol Anat. 34(4):291-9, 2012 May.
21.	Dempsey DT.. Barium upper GI series in adults: a surgeon's perspective. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(6):1323-1328, 2018 06.
22.	Fornari F, Gurski RR, Navarini D, Thiesen V, Mestriner LH, Madalosso CA. Clinical utility of endoscopy and barium swallow X-ray in the diagnosis of sliding hiatal hernia in morbidly obese patients: a study before and after gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 20(6):702-8, 2010 Jun.
23.	Katzka DA.. A gastroenterologist's perspective on the role of barium esophagography in gastroesophageal reflux disease. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(6):1319-1322, 2018 06.
24.	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.
25.	Miller SH. Anaphylactoid reaction after oral administration of diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Apr;168(4):959-61.
26.	Norton-Gregory AA, Kulkarni NM, O'Connor SD, Budovec JJ, Zorn AP, Desouches SL. CT Esophagography for Evaluation of Esophageal Perforation. Radiographics. 2021;41(2):447-461.
27.	Bunting DM, Szczebiot L, Peyser PM. Pain after laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014 Mar;96(2):95-100.
28.	Carbo AI, Kim RH, Gates T, D'Agostino HR. Imaging findings of successful and failed fundoplication. Radiographics. 2014;34(7):1873-84.
29.	Evans BA, Craig WY, Cinelli CM, Siegel SG. CT esophagogram in the emergency setting: typical findings and suggested workflow. Emerg Radiol. 2024 Feb;31(1):33-44.
30.	Johnson LN, Moran SK, Bhargava P, et al. Fluoroscopic Evaluation of Duodenal Diseases. Radiographics. 2022;42(2):397-416.
31.	Kamat R, Patankar R, Supe A, Dubey P, Thapar R, Kalikar V. Computed tomography roadmap for post-operative fundoplication imaging with a novel structured reporting checklist. J Minim Access Surg. 2025 Apr 01;21(2):153-161.
32.	Levine MS, Carucci LR, DiSantis DJ, et al. Consensus Statement of Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on Barium Esophagography in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Nov;207(5):1009-1015.
33.	Kulinna-Cosentini C, Hodge JC, Ba-Ssalamah A. The role of radiology in diagnosing gastrointestinal tract perforation. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2024 Jun;70():S1521-6918(24)00053-2.
34.	Maniatis V, Chryssikopoulos H, Roussakis A, et al. Perforation of the alimentary tract: evaluation with computed tomography. Abdom Imaging. 2000;25(4):373-9.
35.	Levine MS, Rubesin SE, Herlinger H, Laufer I. Double-contrast upper gastrointestinal examination: technique and interpretation. Radiology. 1988 Sep;168(3):593-602.
36.	Miller RE, Nelson SW. The roentgenologic demonstration of tiny amounts of free intraperitoneal gas: experimental and clinical studies. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1971 Jul;112(3):574-85.
37.	Patel A, Lalwani N, Kielar A. Use of oral contrast in 2024: primer for radiologists. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024 Aug;49(8):2953-2959.
38.	Pauwels A, Boecxstaens V, Andrews CN, et al. How to select patients for antireflux surgery? The ICARUS guidelines (international consensus regarding preoperative examinations and clinical characteristics assessment to select adult patients for antireflux surgery). Gut. 2019 Nov;68(11):1928-1941.
39.	Rodríguez Carnero P, Herrasti Gallego A, García Villafañe C, Méndez Fernández R, Rodríguez González R. Multislice computed tomography for the study of complications of gastric fundoplication. Radiologia. 2014;56(5):S0033-8338(12)00211-1.
40.	Roh JJ, Thompson JS, Harned RK, Hodgson PE. Value of pneumoperitoneum in the diagnosis of visceral perforation. Am J Surg. 1983 Dec;146(6):830-3.
41.	Suarez-Poveda T, Morales-Uribe CH, Sanabria A, et al. Diagnostic performance of CT esophagography in patients with suspected esophageal rupture. Emerg Radiol. 2014 Oct;21(5):505-10.
42.	Wu CH, Chen CM, Chen CC, et al. Esophagography after pneumomediastinum without CT findings of esophageal perforation: is it necessary?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Nov;201(5):977-84.

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.