The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.

• Sarcopenia is associated with impaired OS after surgery for oesophageal cancer. • Other body composition parameters are also associated with impaired survival. • This influence on survival is independent of established clinical parameters. • Sarcopenia provides a better estimation of cachexia than BMI. • Sarcopenia assessment could be considered in risk/benefit stratification before oesophagectomy.

Screening of the liver for hepatic lesion detection and characterization is usually performed with either ultrasound or CT. However, both techniques are suboptimal for liver lesion characterization and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has emerged as the preferred radiological investigation. In addition to unenhanced MR imaging techniques, contrast-enhanced MR imaging can demonstrate tissue-specific physiological information, thereby facilitating liver lesion characterization. Currently, the classes of contrast agents available for MR imaging of the liver include non-tissue-specific extracellular gadolinium chelates and tissue-specific hepatobiliary or reticuloendothelial agents. In this review, we describe the MR features of the more common focal hepatic lesions, as well as appropriate imaging protocols. A special emphasis is placed on the clinical use of non-specific and liver-specific contrast agents for differentiation of focal liver lesions. This may aid in the accurate diagnostic workup of patients in order to avoid invasive procedures, such as biopsy, for lesion characterization. A diagnostic strategy that considers the clinical situation is also presented.

No abstract