Cancer screening is a public health strategy entirely different from case findings. The primary role of cancer screening is to reduce mortality from a specific cancer or decrease morbidity from cancerous or precancerous lesions. A systematic program is required to achieve this goal. Before introducing a cancer screening program, efficacy and effectiveness should be evaluated, and aggregated evidence should be incorporated into the guidelines. Evidence-based guidelines are necessary for policymaking and can serve as the basis for cancer screening programs. The process of cancer screening has been established internationally, and all screening methods should be followed for their assessment. This is also applicable for the evaluation of new technologies for cancer screening, but other options are available when the technologies cannot be evaluated as primary screening methods. Cancer screening as a public health policy is based on evidence and should consider the balance of benefits and harms. Shared decision making should be promoted based on appropriate information for cancer screening.

Compared with examining other abdominal parenchymal organs, some observational tips can be considered when examining the pancreas. These tips are as follows: (1) know the shape of the pancreas and the anatomy surrounding it; (2) observe the whole pancreas; (3) adjust the depth, gain, and focus and take a picture on one screen; (4) take your time; (5) check the borderline; (6) know the course of the main pancreatic duct and measure it correctly; (7) consider the elasticity of the pancreas; (8) use the drinking water method (stomach-filling method); (9) change position; and (10) if possible, use a high-frequency probe.

We hope that these tips can be useful in detecting pancreatic mass lesions, such as pancreatic cancer, at a high frequency.

Background: To perform high-quality gastric cancer screening, it is essential to follow the imaging procedures advocated in the revised guidelines for gastric radiography, improve the contrast effect, and perform imaging in an appropriate position. However, the gastric shape is one of the major problems. Therefore, this time, we examined the educational effect using a self-made gastric phantom with a different gastric shape that was originally created for the purpose of improving accuracy.

Materials and Methods: The target cases were 400 gastric cancer screening examinees conducted from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2019. These 400 patients were classified into hook-shaped stomachs, ptosis stomachs, and steer-horn stomachs according to the shape of their stomachs. Five radiographers, including a gastric cancer screening specialist, performed visual evaluations of the following three items: A, contrast effect; B, visualization range; and C, positioning. Furthermore, after the education using a self-made gastric phantom, the effect was evaluated using gastric X-ray images of 108 gastric cancer screening examinees conducted from November 1, 2019, to January 30, 2020.

Results: Visual evaluation before education was lower in the order of hook-shaped stomach, ptosis stomach, and steer horn stomach, but after education, improvement in the visual evaluation was observed in all gastric shapes.

Conclusion: It was speculated that the clinical imaging technique could be improved by creating and educating a gastric phantom. Furthermore, gastric X-ray images suitable for diagnosis could be captured, leading to improved lesion pick-up.

OBJECTIVES: The low-dose exposure method is used for patient dose in CT colonography studies.

This study was a comparative evaluation of both hybrid iterative reconstruction (Hybrid IR) and deep learning reconstruction (DLR)to reduce the exposure dose and construct the optimal image quality.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The exposure doses of SD8, SD30, and SD40 were measured using a CT colonography phantom.

The data measured diameters of 5 mm, 7 mm, and 10 mm phantom polyps and validated the modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and low-contrast object-specific contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRLo) using Hybrid IR and DLR.

The visibility of virtual endoscopy (VE) was examined.

RESULTS: Computed tomography dose index (CTDI) values were 12mGy for SD8, 0.6mGy for SD30, and 0.3mGy for SD40.

There was no significant difference in the relationship between the visual assessment of the phantom polyp measurements, dose, and image reconstruction.

DLR was more effective than Hybrid IR in the overall physical assessment of MTF, NPS, and CNRLo.

VE image visibility was better with DLR than Hybrid IR.

CONCLUSION: It was suggested that it is possible to accurately measure polyps while maintaining image quality by reducing the exposure dose with SD40 for low-dose imaging and reconstruction with DLR.