Imaging After Liver Transplant

Variant: 1 Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	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	☢☢☢
CTA abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications, suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
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	☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications, suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Adult. Post liver transplant. Surveillance.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast multiphase	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
US duplex Doppler abdomen	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Shaun A. Wahab, MD^a; Abhinav Vij, MD, MPH^b; Alice Fung, MD^c; Mustafa R. Bashir, MD^d; Brooks D. Cash, MD^e; Elizabeth M. Hecht, MD^f; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MD^g; Brendan M. McGuire, MD^h; Gregory K. Russo, MDⁱ; Elainea N. Smith, MD^j; Kiran H. Thakrar, MD^k; Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc^l; Atif Zaheer, MD^m; Kathryn J. Fowler, MDⁿ.

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: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
A. CT Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen with IV Contrast Multiphase

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
C. CT Abdomen without and with IV Contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
D. CT Abdomen without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
E. CTA Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Abdomen without and with IV Contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Abdomen without and with IV Contrast with MRCP

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
H. MRI Abdomen without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
I. MRI abdomen without IV contrast with MRCP

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
J. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
K. US Abdomen

Variant 1: Adult. Liver transplant. Immediate postoperative imaging. Initial imaging.
L. US Duplex Doppler Abdomen

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
A. CT Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen with IV Contrast Multiphase

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
C. CT Abdomen Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
D. CT Abdomen Without IV Contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
E. CTA Abdomen With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Abdomen Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
G. MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast with MRCP

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
H. MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
I. MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast with MRCP

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
J. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
K. US Abdomen

Variant 2: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected vascular etiology. Initial imaging.
L. US Duplex Doppler Abdomen

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
A. CT Abdomen With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen With IV Contrast Multiphase

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
C. CT Abdomen Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
D. CT Abdomen Without IV Contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
E. MRI abdomen without and with hepatobiliary contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Abdomen Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Abdomen Without and With IV Contrast with MRCP

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
H. MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
I. MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast with MRCP

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
J. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
K. US Abdomen

Variant 3: Adult. Liver transplant. Postoperative complications. Suspected biliary etiology. Initial imaging.
L. US Duplex Doppler Abdomen

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
A. CT Abdomen With IV Contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
B. CT Abdomen With IV Contrast Multiphase

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
C. CT abdomen without and with IV contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
D. CT Abdomen Without IV Contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
E. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
F. MRI Abdomen Without and With Hepatobiliary Contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
G. MRI Abdomen Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
H. MRI Abdomen Without and With IV Contrast With MRCP

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
I. MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
J. MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast With MRCP

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
K. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
L. US Abdomen

Variant 4: Adult. Post liver-transplant. Surveillance.
M. US Duplex Doppler Abdomen

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.	Brookmeyer CE, Bhatt S, Fishman EK, Sheth S. Multimodality Imaging after Liver Transplant: Top 10 Important Complications. Radiographics 2022;42:702-21.
2.	Starzl TE, Marchioro TL, Vonkaulla KN, Hermann G, Brittain RS, Waddell WR. Homotransplantation of the Liver in Humans. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1963;117:659-76.
3.	Kwong AJ, Kim WR, Lake JR, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2022 Annual Data Report: Liver. Am J Transplant 2024;24:S176-S265.
4.	American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
5.	Chen S, Wang X, Zhang B, Liu B, Pan H. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the detection of vascular complications after liver transplantation. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 111(5):388-396, 2019 May.
6.	Craig EV, Heller MT. Complications of liver transplant. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 46(1):43-67, 2021 01.
7.	Boraschi P, Donati F, Rossi M, Ghinolfi D, Filipponi F, Falaschi F. Role of MDCT in the detection of early abdominal complications after orthotopic liver transplantation. Clinical Imaging. 40(6):1200-1206, 2016 Nov - Dec.Clin Imaging. 40(6):1200-1206, 2016 Nov - Dec.
8.	Lee IS, Park SH, Choi SJ, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Multidetector Computerized Tomography in the Detection of Abdominal Complications Early and Late After Liver Transplantation: A 10-Year Experience. Transplant Proc. 50(10):3673-3680, 2018 Dec.
9.	Kim JS, Kwon JH, Kim KW, et al. Low Graft Attenuation at Unenhanced CT: Association with 1-Month Mortality or Graft Failure after Liver Transplantation. Radiology. 287(1):167-175, 2018 04.
10.	Boraschi P, Della Pina MC, Donati F. Graft complications following orthotopic liver transplantation: Role of non-invasive cross-sectional imaging techniques. [Review]. Eur J Radiol. 85(7):1271-83, 2016 Jul.
11.	Liao M, Guo H, Tong G, et al. Can ultrasonography differentiate anastomotic and non-anastomotic biliary strictures after orthotopic liver transplantation- a single-center experience. Eur J Radiol. 134:109416, 2021 Jan.
12.	Maheshwari E, Tublin ME. Sonography of liver transplantation. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 46(1):68-83, 2021 01.
13.	Bhargava P, Vaidya S, Dick AA, Dighe M. Imaging of orthotopic liver transplantation: self-assessment module. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196(3 Suppl):S35-8, 2011 Mar.
14.	Uzochukwu LN, Bluth EI, Smetherman DH, et al. Early postoperative hepatic sonography as a predictor of vascular and biliary complications in adult orthotopic liver transplant patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1558-70.
15.	Horrow MM, Blumenthal BM, Reich DJ, Manzarbeitia C. Sonographic diagnosis and outcome of hepatic artery thrombosis after orthotopic liver transplantation in adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:346-51.
16.	Girometti R, Pancot M, Como G, Zuiani C. Imaging of liver transplantation. [Review]. European Journal of Radiology. 93:295-307, 2017 Aug.
17.	Dodd GD, 3rd, Memel DS, Zajko AB, Baron RL, Santaguida LA. Hepatic artery stenosis and thrombosis in transplant recipients: Doppler diagnosis with resistive index and systolic acceleration time. Radiology 1994;192:657-61.
18.	Sureka B, Bansal K, Rajesh S, Mukund A, Pamecha V, Arora A. Imaging panorama in postoperative complications after liver transplantation. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2016;4:96-106.
19.	Zhong J, Smith C, Walker P, Sheridan M, Guthrie A, Albazaz R. Imaging post liver transplantation part I: vascular complications. Clin Radiol 2020;75:845-53.
20.	Chong WK, Beland JC, Weeks SM. Sonographic evaluation of venous obstruction in liver transplants. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:W515-21.
21.	McNaughton DA, Abu-Yousef MM. Doppler US of the liver made simple. Radiographics 2011;31:161-88.
22.	Beswick DM, Miraglia R, Caruso S, et al. The role of ultrasound and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of biliary stricture after liver transplantation. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2089-92.
23.	Memeo R, Ciacio O, Pittau G, et al. Systematic computer tomographic scans 7 days after liver transplantation surgery can lower rates of repeat-transplantation due to arterial complications. Transplant Proc. 46(10):3536-42, 2014 Dec.
24.	Kim BS, Kim TK, Jung DJ, et al. Vascular complications after living related liver transplantation: evaluation with gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:467-74.
25.	Camacho JC, Coursey-Moreno C, Telleria JC, Aguirre DA, Torres WE, Mittal PK. Nonvascular post-liver transplantation complications: from US screening to cross-sectional and interventional imaging. [Review]. Radiographics. 35(1):87-104, 2015 Jan-Feb.
26.	Cannella R, Dasyam A, Miller FH, Borhani AA. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Liver Transplant. [Review]. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 29(3):437-450, 2021 Aug.
27.	Cieszanowski A, Stadnik A, Lezak A, et al. Detection of active bile leak with Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR cholangiography: comparison of 20-25 min delayed and 60-180 min delayed images. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:2176-82.
28.	Kul M, Erden A, Dusunceli Atman E. Diagnostic value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography in non-invasive detection of postoperative bile leakage. Br J Radiol 2017;90:20160847.
29.	Boraschi P, Donati F, Pacciardi F, Ghinolfi D, Falaschi F. Biliary complications after liver transplantation: Assessment with MR cholangiopancreatography and MR imaging at 3T device. Eur J Radiol. 106:46-55, 2018 Sep.
30.	Garg B, Rastogi R, Gupta S, Rastogi H, Garg H, Chowdhury V. Evaluation of biliary complications on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and comparison with direct cholangiography after living-donor liver transplantation. Clin Radiol. 72(6):518.e9-518.e15, 2017 Jun.
31.	Katz LH, Benjaminov O, Belinki A, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for the accurate diagnosis of biliary complications after liver transplantation: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography - long-term follow-up. Clin Transplant. 24(5):E163-9, 2010 Sep-Oct.
32.	Singal AG, Llovet JM, Yarchoan M, et al. AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2023;78:1922-65.
33.	Clavien PA, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PM, et al. Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e11-22.
34.	Samanci C, Sobhani F, Ucbilek E, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosis and Monitoring of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Liver Transplantation: A Comprehensive Review. [Review]. Annals of Transplantation. 21:68-76, 2016 Feb 02.
35.	Bowlus CL, Lim JK, Lindor KD. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surveillance for Hepatobiliary Cancers in Patients With Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: Expert Review. [Review]. Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 17(12):2416-2422, 2019 11.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 17(12):2416-2422, 2019 11.
36.	Liu D, Chan AC, Fong DY, Lo CM, Khong PL. Evidence-Based Surveillance Imaging Schedule After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence. Transplantation. 101(1):107-111, 2017 Jan.
37.	American College of Radiology. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Available at: http://www.acr.org/quality-safety/resources/LIRADS.
38.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
39.	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.