Search

Functional imaging techniques enable physiological information to be derived, which, combined with high-resolution anatomical imaging, has the potential to improve the management of patients with intestinal disease. Two of the common pathologies where imaging has a substantial role in depicting disease extent, in staging disease, and assessing therapeutic response and/or disease relapse are cancer and inflammatory bowel disease. In these scenarios, functional imaging may augment assessment of disease activity, therapeutic response/non-response, as well as disease relapse by indicating physiological changes as a result of tumor, inflammation, or fibrosis.

There are a number of conditions affecting the vagina and vulva that can be optimally assessed with the use of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This paper gives a suggested protocol for MRI technique and sequences for imaging the pelvis and perineum and reviews the MRI appearances of many of the common pathologies affecting the vagina and vulva. Congenital anomalies, inflammatory and neoplastic entities such as vaginal and vulval carcinoma are discussed, with rarer malignancies also reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and cost implications of using computed tomography colonography (CTC) compared to optical colonoscopy (OC) as the initial colonic investigation in patients with low-to-intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).Materials and Methods: A non-randomised, prospective single-centre study recruited 180 participants to compare the cost implications of two clinical pathways used in the diagnosis of low-to-intermediate risk of CRC that differ in the initial diagnostic test, either CTC or OC. Costs were compared using generalised linear models (GLM) and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D-5L) to estimate cost-effectiveness at 6 months post-recruitment. Secondary outcomes assessed access to care and patient satisfaction.Results: Mean (SD, n) cost at 6 months post-recruitment per participant was £991 (£316, n=105) for the OC group and £645 (£607, n=68) for the CTC group, leading to an estimated cost difference of -£370 (95% CI: -£554, -£185, p<0.001). Assuming a £20,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold, there was a 91.4% probability of CTC being cost-effective at month 6. The utilisation of CTC led to improved access to care, with a shorter mean time from referral from primary care to results (6.3 days difference, p=0.005). No differences in patient satisfaction were detected between both groups.Conclusion: The utilisation of CTC as the first-line investigation for patients with low-to-intermediate risk of CRC has the potential to release OC capacity, of pivotal importance for patients more likely to benefit from an invasive diagnostic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]