Axillary lymphadenopathy is a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, leading to increased imaging-detected asymptomatic and symptomatic unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy. This has threatened to negatively impact the workflow of breast imaging services, leading to the release of ten recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) in August 2021. Considering the rapidly changing scenario and data scarcity, these initial recommendations kept a highly conservative approach. As of 2023, according to newly acquired evidence, EUSOBI proposes the following updates, in order to reduce unnecessary examinations and avoid delaying necessary examinations. First, recommendation n. 3 has been revised to state that breast examinations should not be delayed or rescheduled because of COVID-19 vaccination, as evidence from the first pandemic waves highlights how delayed or missed screening tests have a negative effect on breast cancer morbidity and mortality, and that there is a near-zero risk of subsequent malignant findings in asymptomatic patients who have unilateral lymphadenopathy and no suspicious breast findings. Second, recommendation n. 7 has been revised to simplify follow-up strategies: in patients without breast cancer history and no imaging findings suspicious for cancer, symptomatic and asymptomatic imaging-detected unilateral lymphadenopathy on the same side of recent COVID-19 vaccination (within 12 weeks) should be classified as a benign finding (BI-RADS 2) and no further work-up should be pursued. All other recommendations issued by EUSOBI in 2021 remain valid.

We present a multimodality pictorial review of axillary lymphadenopathy in patients recently vaccinated against COVID-19. As the mass vaccination programme continues to be rolled out worldwide in an effort to combat the pandemic, it is important that radiologists consider recent COVID-19 vaccination in the differential diagnosis of unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy and are aware of typical appearances across all imaging methods. We review current guidelines on the management of unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy in the context of recent COVID-19 vaccination.

Over the years, several guidelines have been introduced to guide management of mucinous pancreatic cystic neoplasms (mPCN). In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the clinically utility of the Sendai-06, Fukuoka-12, Fukuoka-17 and European-18 guidelines in predicting malignancy of mPCN.
One hundred and eighty-eight patients with mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN) or intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) who underwent surgery were retrospectively reviewed and classified under the 4 guidelines. Malignancy was defined as high grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma.
Raised CA19-9>37U/ml, enhancing mural nodule≥5 mm and main pancreatic duct≥10 mm were significantly associated with malignancy on multivariate analysis. Increasing number of high risk features, absolute indications (European-18), worrisome risk or relative indications (European-18) were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of malignancy. The positive predictive values (PPV) of high risk features for Sendai-06, Fukuoka-12, Fukuoka-17 and absolute indications (European-18) for malignancy were 53%, 76%, 78% and 78% respectively. The negative predictive values (NPV) of the Sendai-06, Fukuoka-12 and Fukuoka-17 were 100%, while that of the European-18 was 92%. Risk of malignancy for patients with ≥4 worrisome features (Fukuoka-17) and ≥3 relative indications (European-18) was 66.7% and 75.0% respectively.
All 4 guidelines studied were useful in the initial triage of mPCN for the risk stratification of malignancy. The Fukuoka-17 had the highest PPV and NPV.

Background: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure.Methods: Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability.Results: The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and 1 best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality.Conclusions: The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.

BACKGROUND: The authors present the guidelines of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology (SFORL) for clinical and radiological assessment of cystic neck lymphadenopathy of unknown primary in adults. Most cases concern head and neck carcinoma metastasis, often in the oropharyngeal area, or less frequently differentiated thyroid carcinoma or non-keratinizing nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary task force was commissioned to carry out a review of the literature on the etiological work-up in cystic neck lymphadenopathy in adults: clinical examination, conventional imaging (ultrasound, CT, MRI) and metabolic imaging. Guidelines were drafted based on the articles retrieved, and graded A, B, C or expert opinion according to decreasing level of evidence.
RESULTS: Oriented clinical examination, cervical and thyroid ultrasound scan and contrast-enhanced neck and chest CT scan are recommended in the assessment of cystic neck lymphadenopathy of unknown primary in adult patients. PET-CT is recommended prior to panendoscopy, to identify the primary tumor.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiological assessment is fundamental for etiologic diagnosis of cystic neck lymphadenopathy in adult patients, and should be completed by cytological examination before in initiating treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The authors present the guidelines of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Society on diagnostic procedures for lymphadenopathy in case of a cervical mass with cystic aspect.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary work-group was entrusted with a review of the scientific literature on the topic. Guidelines were drawn up, then read over by an editorial group independent of the work-group, and the final version was drawn up. Guidelines were graded as A, B, C or expert opinion, by decreasing level of evidence.
RESULTS: In adults presenting a cystic cervical mass, it is recommended to suspect cervical lymphadenopathy: in order of decreasing frequency, cystic metastasis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, of undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and of thyroid papillary carcinoma (Grade C). On discovery of a cystic cervical mass on ultrasound, architectural elements indicating a lymph node and a thyroid nodule with signs of malignancy should be screened for, especially if the mass is located in levels III, IV or VI (Grade A). Malignant lymphadenopathy should be suspected in case of cervical mass with cystic component on CT (Grade B), but benign or malignant status cannot be diagnosed only on radiological data (CT or MRI) (Grade A), and 18-FDG PET-CT should be performed, particularly in case of inconclusive ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (Grade C).

This consensus statement update reflects our current published knowledge and opinion about clinical signs, pathogenesis, epidemiology, treatment, complications, and control of strangles. This updated statement emphasizes varying presentations in the context of existing underlying immunity and carrier states of strangles in the transmission of disease. The statement redefines the \"gold standard\" for detection of possible infection and reviews the new technologies available in polymerase chain reaction diagnosis and serology and their use in outbreak control and prevention. We reiterate the importance of judicious use of antibiotics in horses with strangles. This updated consensus statement reviews current vaccine technology and the importance of linking vaccination with currently advocated disease control and prevention programs to facilitate the eradication of endemic infections while safely maintaining herd immunity. Differentiation between immune responses to primary and repeated exposure of subclinically infected animals and responses induced by vaccination is also addressed.

For pancreatic solid lesions, ESGE recommends performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling as first-line procedure when a pathological diagnosis is required. Alternatively, percutaneous sampling may be considered in metastatic disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of negative or inconclusive results and a high degree of suspicion of malignant disease, ESGE suggests re-evaluating the pathology slides, repeating EUS-guided sampling, or surgery.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.In patients with chronic pancreatitis associated with a pancreatic mass, EUS-guided sampling results that do not confirm cancer should be interpreted with caution.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), ESGE recommends EUS-guided sampling for biochemical analyses plus cytopathological examination if a precise diagnosis may change patient management, except for lesions ≤ 10 mm in diameter with no high risk stigmata. If the volume of PCL aspirate is small, it is recommended that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level determination be done as the first analysis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For esophageal cancer, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling for the assessment of regional lymph nodes (LNs) in T1 (and, depending on local treatment policy, T2) adenocarcinoma and of lesions suspicious for metastasis such as distant LNs, left liver lobe lesions, and suspected peritoneal carcinomatosis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.For lymphadenopathy of unknown origin, ESGE recommends performing EUS-guided (or alternatively endobronchial ultrasound [EBUS]-guided) sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management and no superficial lymphadenopathy is easily accessible.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of solid liver masses suspicious for metastasis, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management, and (i) the lesion is poorly accessible/not detected at percutaneous imaging, or (ii) a sample obtained via the percutaneous route repeatedly yielded an inconclusive result.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.