Search

The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the Prophet forecasting procedure, part of the Facebook open-source Artificial Intelligence portfolio, for forecasting variations in radiological examination volumes. Daily CT and MRI examination volumes from our institution were extracted from the radiology information system (RIS) database. Data from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, was used for training the Prophet algorithm, and data from January 2020 was used for validation. Algorithm performance was then evaluated prospectively in February and August 2020. Total error and mean error per day were evaluated, and computational time was logged using different Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) samples. Data from 610,570 examinations were used for training; the majority were CTs (82.3%). During retrospective testing, prediction error was reduced from 19 to

Vaccination-associated adenopathy is a frequent imaging finding after administration of COVID-19 vaccines that may lead to a diagnostic conundrum in patients with manifest or suspected cancer, in whom it may be indistinguishable from malignant nodal involvement. To help the medical community address this concern in the absence of studies and evidence-based guidelines, this paper offers recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from three of the leading tertiary care cancer centers in the United States. According to these recommendations, some routine imaging examinations, such as those for screening, should be scheduled before or at least 6 weeks after the final vaccination dose to allow for any reactive adenopathy to resolve. However, there should be no delay of other clinically indicated imaging (e.g., for acute symptoms, short-interval treatment monitoring, urgent treatment planning or complications) due to prior vaccination. The vaccine should be administered on the side contralateral to the primary or suspected cancer, and both doses should be administered in the same arm. Vaccination information (date(s) administered, injection site(s), laterality, and type of vaccine) should be included in every pre-imaging patient questionnaire, and this information should be made readily available to interpreting radiologists. Clear and effective communication between patients, radiologists, referring physician teams and the general public should be considered of the highest priority when managing adenopathy in the setting of COVID-19 vaccination. Summary COVID-19-vaccination–related adenopathy is a frequent imaging finding that may lead to a diagnostic conundrum in patients with manifest or suspected cancer, in whom it may be indistinguishable from malignant nodal involvement. This special report offers recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from three of the leading tertiary care cancer centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cancers of unknown primary (CUP) have traditionally been treated empirically, with a dismal prognosis. Compared with standard diagnostic tests, including CT and MRI, imaging with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET or PET/CT has shown the capacity to better identify the primary tumor site and detect additional sites of metastasis. However, its clinical impact is not well established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prior studies to assess the impact of FDG-PET or PET/CT on the management of patients with CUP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 4, 2021. Studies that reported the proportion of patients with CUP who experienced a management change after FDG-PET or PET/CT were included, and the proportions were pooled using the random-effects model. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies (involving 2795 patients) were included. The pooled proportion of patients with management changes was 35% (95% confidence interval 31%–40%). There was substantial heterogeneity among the studies (Q-test, p

Purpose:We determined the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for detecting nodal metastases in patients with muscle invasive...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has established survival benefits prior to cystectomy for bladder cancer, yet its role in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) prior to ...

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

To assess the utility of morphologic and quantitative CT features in differentiating abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) from other masses of the abdominal wall. Retrospective IRB-approved study of 105 consecutive women from two institutions who underwent CT and biopsy/resection of abdominal wall masses. CTs were independently reviewed by two radiologists blinded to final histopathologic diagnoses. Associations between CT features and pathology were tested using Fisher’s Exact Test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated. P values were adjusted for multiple variable testing. 24.8% (26/105) of patients had histologically proven abdominal wall endometriosis. The other most common diagnoses included adenocarcinoma NOS (21%; 22/105), desmoid (14.3%; 15/105), and leiomyosarcoma (8.6%; 9/105). CT features significantly associated with endometriosis for both readers were location below the umbilicus (P = 0.0188), homogeneous density (P = 0.0188), and presence of linear infiltration irradiating peripherally from a central soft tissue nodule (i.e., “gorgon” sign) (P

Rationale and Objectives To identify the presence and extent of artifacts in prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and discuss tradeoffs between imaging at 1.5 T (1.5 T) and 3.0 T (3.0 T). In addition, we aim to provide quantitative estimates of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) at both field strengths. Materials and Methods The institutional review board waived informed consent for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant, retrospective study of 53 consecutive men who underwent 3.0 T endorectal DW-MRI and 53 consecutive men who underwent 1.5 T endorectal DW-MRI between October and December 2010. One radiologist and one physicist, blinded to patient characteristics, image acquisition parameters, and field strength, scored DW-MRI artifacts. On b = 0 images, SNR was measured as the ratio of the mean signal from a region of interest (ROI) at the level of the verumontanum (the “reference region”) to the standard deviation from the mean signal in an artifact-free ROI in the rectum. Results Both readers found geometric distortion and signal graininess significantly more often at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T ( P P = .001) and blurring more often at 1.5 T ( P = .006). Mean SNR at the urethra (87.92 ± 27.76) at 3.0 T was 1.43 times higher than at 1.5 T (64.51 ± 14.96) ( P Conclusions At 3.0 T (as compared to 1.5 T), increased SNR on prostate DW-MRI comes at the expense of geometric distortion and can also lead to more pronounced ghosting artifacts. Therefore, to take full advantage of the benefits of 3.0 T, further improvements in acquisition techniques are needed to address DW-MRI artifacts corresponding to higher field strengths.

Primary malignant tumors of the uterus include: 1. Tumors of the uterine cervix 80% are squamous carcinomas arising from the ectocervix 15% are adenocarcinomas from the endocervical canal. 2. Tumors of the endometrium 90% are type 1 tumors: endometrioid carcinoma grades 1 and 2 10% are more aggressive type 2 tumors: grade 3 endometrioid and clear cell carcinoma, papillary serous carcinoma, and poorly differentiated tumors. 3. Uterine sarcomas Endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) and adenosarcoma arising from the stroma of the uterus Leiomyosarcoma arising from its smooth muscle.

CONTEXT: Comparative reviews of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT; with different radiotracers) have shown that metastasis detection in advanced cancers is more accurate than with currently used CT and bone scans. However, the ability of WB-MRI and positron emission tomography/CT to assess therapeutic benefits has not been comprehensively evaluated. There is also considerable variability in the availability and quality of WB-MRI, which is an impediment to clinical development. Expert recommendations for standardising WB-MRI scans are needed, in order to assess its performance in advanced prostate cancer (APC) clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To design recommendations that promote standardisation and diminish variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of WB-MRI scans for use in APC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An international expert panel of oncologic imagers and oncologists with clinical and research interests in APC management assessed biomarker requirements for clinical care and clinical trials. Key requirements for a workable WB-MRI protocol, achievable quality standards, and interpretation criteria were identified and synthesised in a white paper. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer guidelines were formulated for use in all oncologic manifestations of APC. CONCLUSIONS: Uniformity in imaging data acquisition, quality, and interpretation of WB-MRI are essential for assessing the test performance of WB-MRI. The METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer standard requires validation in clinical trials of treatment approaches in APC. PATIENT SUMMARY: METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer represents the consensus recommendations on the performance, quality standards, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging, for use in all oncologic manifestations of advanced prostate cancer. These new criteria require validation in clinical trials of established and new treatment approaches in advanced prostate cancer.