Search

PURPOSETo evaluate the performance of radiology residents (RRs) when using a dedicated structured report (SR) template for chest HRCT in patients with suspected connective tissue disease-interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD), compared to the traditional narrative report (NR).METHODSWe retrospectively evaluated 50 HRCT exams in patients with suspected CTD-ILD. A chest-devoted radiologist reported all the HRCT exams as the reference standard, pointing out pulmonary fibrosis findings (i.e., honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, reticulation, and volume loss), presence and pattern of ILD, and possible other diagnoses. We divided four RRs into two groups according to their expertise level. In each group, RRs reported all HRCT examinations alternatively with NR or SR, noting each report's reporting time. The Cohen's Kappa, Wilcoxon, and McNemar tests were used for statistical analysis.RESULTSRegarding the pulmonary fibrosis findings, we found higher agreement between RRs and the reference standard reader when using SR than NR, regardless of their expertise level, except for volume loss.RRs' accuracy for "other diagnosis" was higher when using SR than NR, moving from 0.48 to 0.66 in the novel group (p = 0.035) and from 0.44 to 0.80 in the expertise group (p < 0.001). No differences in accuracy were found between ILD presence and ILD pattern. The reporting time was significantly lower (p = 0.001) when using SR than NR.CONCLUSIONSR is of value in increasing the reporting of critical chest HRCT findings in the complex CTD-ILD scenario and should be used early and systematically during the residency.

Abstract The impact of socio-economic status on the risk of allergy in African children is not clear. This was a cross sectional study including children aged 6–14 years from urban and rural settings in north-central Nigeria. Participants underwent skin prick tests to house dust mite (HDM) and an interview investigating socio-economic status through the Family Affluence Scale (FAS) based on a score of 0–6. A total of 346 children were enrolled (52.8% boys; mean age ± SD 9.6 ± 2.0 years), including 142 (41% of total) rural and 204 (59% of total) urban pupils. Prevalence of HDM sensitivity was 2.8% (4/142) in the rural setting and 15.6% (32/204) in the urban setting (P

Purpose: To compare the sensitivity for breast cancer (BC) and BC size estimation of preoperative contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) versus combined unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (UMRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Patients and methods: We retrospectively included 56 women who underwent DBT and preoperative 1.5 T CEMRI between January 2016–February 2017. Three readers with 2–10 years of experience in CEMRI and DBT, blinded to pathology, independently reviewed CEMRI (diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging, pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted imaging) and a combination of UMRI (DWI and pre-contrast T1-weighted imaging) and DBT. We calculated per-lesion sensitivity of CEMRI and UMRI + DBT, and the agreement between CEMRI, UMRI and DBT versus pathology in assessing cancer size (Bland-Altman analysis). Logistic regression was performed to assess features predictive of cancer missing. Results: We included 70 lesions (64% invasive BC, 36% ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive BC with in situ component). UMRI + DBT showed lower sensitivity (86–89%) than CEMRI (94–100%), with a significant difference for the most experienced reader only (p = 0.008). False-positives were fewer with UMRI + DBT (4–5) than with CEMRI (18–25), regardless of the reader (p = 0.001–0.005). For lesion size, UMRI showed closer limits of agreement with pathology than CEMRI or DBT. Cancer size ≤1 cm was the only independent predictor for cancer missing for both imaging strategies (Odds ratio 8.62 for CEMRI and 19.16 for UMRI + DBT). Conclusions: UMRI + DBT showed comparable sensitivity and less false-positives than CEMRI in the preoperative assessment of BC. UMRI was the most accurate tool to assess cancer size.

(1) Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between full multiparametric contrast-enhanced prostate MRI (mpMRI) and abbreviated dual-sequence prostate MRI (dsMRI) in men with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) who were candidates for active surveillance. (2) Materials and Methods: Fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of low-risk PCa in the previous 6 months had a mpMRI scan prior to a saturation biopsy and a subsequent MRI cognitive transperineal targeted biopsy (for PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions). The dsMRI images were obtained from the mpMRI protocol. The images were selected by a study coordinator and assigned to two readers blinded to the biopsy results (R1 and R2). Inter-reader agreement for clinically significant cancer was evaluated with Cohen’s kappa. The dsMRI and mpMRI accuracy was calculated for each reader (R1 and R2). The clinical utility of the dsMRI and mpMRI was investigated with a decision-analysis model. (3) Results: The dsMRI sensitivity and specificity were 83.3%, 31.0%, 75.0%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The mpMRI sensitivity and specificity were 91.7%, 31.0%, 83.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The inter-reader agreement for the detection of csPCa was moderate (k = 0.53) and good (k = 0.63) for dsMRI and mpMRI, respectively. The AUC values for the dsMRI were 0.77 and 0.62 for the R1 and R2, respectively. The AUC values for the mpMRI were 0.79 and 0.66 for R1 and R2, respectively. No AUC differences were found between the two MRI protocols. At any risk threshold, the mpMRI showed a higher net benefit than the dsMRI for both R1 and R2. (4) Conclusions: The dsMRI and mpMRI showed similar diagnostic accuracy for csPCa in male candidates for active surveillance.

Abstract Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become the standard of care to achieve accurate and reproducible diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, mpMRI is quite demanding in terms of technical rigour, patient’s tolerability and safety, expertise in interpretation, and costs. This paper reviews the main technical strategies proposed as less-is-better solutions for clinical practice (non-contrast biparametric MRI, reduction of acquisition time, abbreviated protocols, computer-aided diagnosis systems), discussing them in the light of the available evidence and of the concurrent evolution of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). We also summarised research results on those advanced techniques representing an alternative different-is-better line of the still ongoing evolution of prostate MRI (quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging, quantitative dynamic contrast enhancement, intravoxel incoherent motion, diffusion tensor imaging, diffusional kurtosis imaging, restriction spectrum imaging, radiomics analysis, hybrid positron emission tomography/MRI).

In women at high/intermediate lifetime risk of breast cancer (BC-LTR), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography ± ultrasound (MX ± US) increases sensitivity but decreases specificity. Screening with MRI alone is an alternative and potentially more cost-effective strategy. Here, we describe the study protocol and the characteristics of enrolled patients for MRIB feasibility, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, which aims to compare MRI alone versus MX+US in women at intermediate breast cancer risk (aged 40–59, with a 15–30% BC-LTR and/or extremely dense breasts). Two screening rounds per woman were planned in ten centers experienced in MRI screening, the primary endpoint being the rate of cancers detected in the 2 arms after 5 years of follow-up. From July 2013 to November 2015, 1254 women (mean age 47 years) were enrolled: 624 were assigned to MX+US and 630 to MRI. Most of them were aged below 50 (72%) and premenopausal (45%), and 52% used oral contraceptives. Among postmenopausal women, 15% had used hormone replacement therapy. Breast and/or ovarian cancer in mothers and/or sisters were reported by 37% of enrolled women, 79% had extremely dense breasts, and 41% had a 15–30% BC-LTR. The distribution of the major determinants of breast cancer risk profiles (breast density and family history of breast and ovarian cancer) of enrolled women varied across centers.