Four cats with feline gastrointestinal eosinophilic sclerosing fibroplasia (FGESF) are described. Clinical signs included decreased appetite, weight loss, vomiting and diarrhea. Bloodwork abnormalities included mild neutrophilia (n = 2) and hyperglobulinemia with concurrent hyperproteinemia (n = 2). Ultrasonographically, a total of five solitary masses with mural thickening and loss of layering were identified in the stomach, duodenum, jejunum and colon. In one cat a second, separate lesion was diagnosed 3 weeks following surgical resection of one mass. Histopathologically, lesions were characterized by collagen trabeculae and mixed inflammatory cell infiltrates, predominantly eosinophils. Multiple areas of necrosis were also noted, which contained bacteria in 2/4 cats. In two cats, changes consistent with FGESF were also noted in the liver. All cats had surgical resection of their lesions. Two cats are still living at time of publication (43 and 24 months post-surgery). FGESF should be considered as a differential for intestinal masses in cats.

A 13 yr old female spayed Labrador retriever presented for vulvar bleeding. Abdominal radiographs revealed a soft tissue mass in the ventral pelvic canal. A computed tomography (CT) exam and a CT vaginourethrogram localized the mass to the vagina, helped further characterize the mass, and aided in surgical planning. A total vaginectomy was performed and the histologic diagnosis was leiomyoma. Vaginal tumors make up 1.9-3% of all tumors. Seventy-three percent of vaginal tumors are benign, and 83% of those are leiomyomas. Leiomyomas often have a good long-term prognosis with surgical resection. The diagnostic investigation of this case report utilized a multimodal imaging approach to determine the extent and respectability of the vaginal mass. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first report describing a CT vaginourethrogram.

An imaging report is a vital communication tool between a radiologist and clinician. In a field where in-person communication may not be readily available, it is imperative that the report clearly relays pertinent clinical information in a timely manner. The purpose of this observational study was to describe and compare opinions and expectations of small animal general practitioners, veterinary specialists, and veterinary radiologists regarding the imaging report. Online surveys were distributed, and data were collected from 202 veterinary clinicians and 123 veterinary radiologists. The majority (89%) of clinicians were satisfied with their imaging reports and stated that they read the radiology report as soon as it was available (92%). Just less than half (48%) of clinicians indicated it was standard of care that a board-certified veterinary radiologist read all imaging studies. Radiologists and clinicians agreed that a clinical history (98% and 94%, respectively) and clinical question (82% and 68%, respectively) were needed to generate a good radiology report. Fifty-five percent to 70% of clinicians prefer red bulleted reports, which included incidental findings (96%); while radiologists slightly favored prose reporting (37-46%). Clinicians found it helpful when additional imaging (86%), medical (71%), and surgical recommendations (73%) were made. About one-third of specialists who had been in practice for >11 years thought they were better able to interpret imaging for their own specialty than the radiologist. Clinicians voiced discontentment with reports that were not completed in a timely manner or did not give a prioritized differential list. Further studies are warranted to provide a more in-depth evaluation of veterinary radiology reporting structure and style.