Search

Objective: Semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE MRI) has proven useful in discriminating benign from borderline/malignant adnexal lesions. Our aim was to assess if the use of a lesion-to-internal-reference ratio improved the performance in characterizing adnexal masses and which internal reference was suitable. Methods: Semi-quantitative DCE MRI images of 71 indeterminate adnexal lesions were retrospectively reviewed. A region of interest was manually drawn onto the enhancing solid component, psoas muscle and normal outer myometrium. The DCE parameters were evaluated, and the lesion-to-internal-reference ratios were calculated. Results: When the wash in rate of the lesion was higher than that of the myometrium, 97% specificity and 12% sensitivity for borderline/malignancy was reached. When the maximum relative enhancement and maximum absolute enhancement (Slmax) of the lesion was less than those of the psoas, 100% specificity for benignity was achieved. The highest area under the curve (AUC) (0.807 ) was achieved using a Slmaxlesion-myometrium ratio. A s lightly lower AUC (0.799) was achieved using a Slmax lesion-psoas ratio, but the psoas muscle was more frequently measurable in the same slice as the lesion ROI. Although the AUC was higher, when using ratios instead of individual DCE values, this was not significantly different. Conclusion: DCE MRI has added diagnostic value in the assessment of adnexal lesions, and the use of internal references enables high specificity for malignancy and benignity. Lesion-internal-reference ratios have no added diagnostic value over DCE values alone. Advances in knowledge: Both psoas muscle and myometrium are suitable internal references in the DCE assessment of adnexal lesions enabling high specificity for malignancy and benignity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives MRI is routinely used in the investigation of colovesical fistulae at our institute. Several papers have alluded to its usefulness in achieving the diagnosis; however, there is a paucity of literature on its imaging findings. Our objective was to quantify the MRI characteristics of these fistulae. Methods We selected all cases over a 4-year period with a final clinical diagnosis of colovesical fistula which had been investigated with MRI. The MRI scans were reviewed in a consensus fashion by two consultant uroradiologists. Their MRI features were quantified. Results There were 40 cases of colovesical fistulae. On MRI, the fistula morphology consistently fell into three patterns. The most common pattern (71%) demonstrated an intervening abscess between the bowel wall and bladder wall. The second pattern (15%) had a visible track between the affected bowel and bladder. The third pattern (13%) was a complete loss of fat plane between the affected bladder and bowel wall. MRI correctly determined the underlying aetiology in 63% of cases. Conclusions MRI is a useful imaging modality in the diagnosis of colovesical fistulae. The fistulae appear to have three characteristic morphological patterns that may aid future diagnoses of colovesical fistulae. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first publication of the MRI findings in colovesical fistulae. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Incidental findings (IF) are becoming increasingly common due to the proliferation of imaging research. IFs can be life-changing for "healthy" volunteers. This study examined variation in IF management in UK research studies of healthy volunteers, including comparison with ethical and legal guidelines, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice. Methods: Questionnaire of participant background [medical/non-medical; radiologist/non-radiologist; years as principal investigator (PI)], type of research (involving children or not), institutional policy, volunteer information, radiologist involvement in reporting scans and IF disclosure mechanisms. Investigator's current and perceived "ideal" practice was examined. Participants were PIs performing imaging research of healthy volunteers approved by UK ethics committees (2006-2009). Results: 63/146 (43%) surveys completed. 54/61 (88.5%) had site-specific guidelines. Information commonly provided to volunteers should IF be found: personal data (51/62; 82%), contingency plans (54/62; 87%) and disclosure to general practitioner (GP)/treating physician (47/62; 76%). PIs used different strategies for image review. Commonest: radiologist reports research scans only when researcher suspicious of IF [15/57 (26%) compared with 5/28 (16%) in ideal practice]. Commonest ideal reporting strategy: routine reporting by specialist radiologists [9/28 (29%) compared with 8/57 (14%) in current practice]. 49/56 (87.5%) have a standardised disclosure contingency plan, usually involving GP. PIs most commonly disclosed IFs to volunteers when judged relevant (27/58; 47%), most commonly face to face (22/54; 41%), by volunteer's GP (26/ 60; 43%). Background of PI influenced consent, reporting and disclosure practice. Conclusion: There is wide variation in handling IFs in UK imaging research. Much of the current practice contravenes the vague existing legal and ethical guidelines, and is unlikely to be in the best interests of volunteers or researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incidental findings found in ''healthy'' volunteers during research imaging are common and have important implications for study design and performance, particularly in the areas of informed consent, subjects' rights, clinical image analysis and disclosure. In this study, we aimed to determine current practice and regulations concerning information that should be given to research subjects when obtaining consent, reporting of research images, who should be informed about any incidental findings and the method of disclosure. We reviewed all UK, European and international humanitarian, legal and ethical agencies' guidance. We found that the guidance on what constitutes incidental pathology, how to recognise it and what to do about it is inconsistent between agencies, difficult to find and less complete in the UK than elsewhere. Where given, guidance states that volunteers should be informed during the consent process about how research images will be managed, whether a mechanism exists for identifying incidental findings, arrangements for their disclosure, the potential benefit or harm and therapeutic options. The effects of incidentally discovered pathology on the individual can be complex and far-reaching. Radiologist involvement in analysis of research images varies widely; many incidental findings might therefore go unrecognised. In conclusion, guidance on the management of research imaging is inconsistent, limited and does not address the interests of volunteers. Improved standards to guide management of research images and incidental findings are urgently required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]