Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To assess virtual non-contrast (VNC) images obtained on a detection-based spectral detector CT scanner and determine how attenuation on VNC images derived from various phases of enhanced CT compare to those obtained from true unenhanced images. Methods In this HIPAA compliant, IRB approved prospective multi-institutional study, 46 patients underwent pre- and post-contrast imaging on a prototype dual-layer spectral detector CT between October 2013 and November 2015, yielding 84 unenhanced and VNC pairs (25 arterial, 39 portal venous/nephrographic, 20 urographic). Mean attenuation was measured by one of three readers in the liver, spleen, kidneys, psoas muscle, abdominal aorta, and subcutaneous fat. Equivalence testing was used to determine if the mean difference between unenhanced and VNC attenuation was less than 5, 10, or 15 HU. VNC image quality was assessed on a 5 point scale. Results Mean difference between unenhanced and VNC attenuation was <15 HU in 92.6%, <10 HU in 75.2%, and <5 HU in 44.4% of all measurements. Unenhanced and VNC attenuation were equivalent in all tissues except fat using a threshold of <10 HU difference ( p  < 0.05). No significant variation was seen between phases. In fat, VNC overestimated the HU relative to unenhanced images. VNC image quality was rated as excellent or good in 84% of arterial phase and 85% of nephrographic phase cases, but only 40% of urographic phase. Conclusion VNC images derived from novel dual layer spectral detector CT demonstrate attenuation values similar to unenhanced images in all tissues evaluated except for subcutaneous fat. Further study is needed to determine if attenuation thresholds currently used clinically for common pathology should be adjusted, particularly for lesions containing fat.

Objectives To develop a dual-energy CT method for differentiating and quantifying high- Z contrast elements and to evaluate the limitations based on element concentration and atomic number by using an anthropomorphic phantom study. Methods Mass spectrometry standards for iodine, barium, gadolinium, ytterbium, tantalum, gold, and bismuth were diluted from 10.0 to 0.3 mg/mL, placed inside 7-mL vials, and scanned with dual-energy CT using an abdominal phantom and cylindrical water-filled insert. This procedure was repeated with all seven high- Z elements at six isoattenuating values from 250 to 8 HU. Quantification accuracy was measured using a linear regression model and residual error analysis with 90% limits of agreement. The limit of detection for each element was evaluated using the limit of blank of water. Pairwise differentiation of isoattenuating vials was evaluated using AUC values and the difference in fit angles between the two elements. Results Each high- Z element had a unique concentration vector in a two-dimensional plot of Compton scattering versus photoelectric effect attenuations. Mean quantification values were within ± 0.1 mg/mL of the true values for each element with no proportional bias. Limits of detection ranged from 0.35 to 0.56 mg/mL. Pairwise differentiations were proportional to the isoattenuating HU and the angle between the linear fits with mean AUC values increasing from 0.61 to 0.98 at 8 to 250 HU, respectively. Conclusion Dual-energy CT can differentiate and quantify isoattenuating high- Z elements. The high-attenuation characteristics and unique concentration vectors of ytterbium, tantalum, gold, and bismuth are well suited for new dual-energy CT contrast agents especially when simultaneously imaged with iodine, barium, or gadolinium. Key Points • Dual-energy CT can accurately quantify high-Z contrast elements and readily differentiate iodine, barium, and gadolinium from ytterbium, tantalum, gold, and bismuth. • The differentiation and quantification capabilities for high-Z contrast elements are largely unaffected by phantom size and transaxial location within the phantom. • Potential benefits of new CT contrast agents based on these high-Z elements include alternatives for patients with iodine sensitivity, high conspicuity at both 120 and 140 kVp, simultaneous imaging of two contrast agents, and reduced injection volume.

The spectrum of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) includes many neoplasms with distinct cytogenetics, biologic behaviors, and imaging appearances. The advent of molecular therapies targeting different tumor types, new insights into the relative roles of biopsy and surveillance for small incidental tumors, and a growing array of nephron-sparing interventions have altered management of RCC. Similarly, the role of the radiologist is changing, and it is becoming increasingly important for radiologists to familiarize themselves with the various types of RCC. This article introduces the reader to the common and uncommon recognized types of renal cell carcinoma and discusses how these neoplasms differ in imaging appearance and behavior.

PurposeTo assess the non-inferiority of dual-layer spectral detector CT (SDCT) compared to dual-source dual-energy CT (dsDECT) in discriminating uric acid (UA) from non-UA stones.MethodsFifty-seven extracted urinary calculi were placed in a cylindrical phantom in a water bath and scanned on a SDCT scanner (IQon, Philips Healthcare) and second- and third-generation dsDECT scanners (Somatom Flash and Force, Siemens Healthcare) under matched scan parameters. For SDCT data, conventional images and virtual monoenergetic reconstructions were created. A customized 3D growing region segmentation tool was used to segment each stone on a pixel-by-pixel basis for statistical analysis. Median virtual monoenergetic ratios (VMRs) of 40/200, 62/92, and 62/100 for each stone were recorded. For dsDECT data, dual-energy ratio (DER) for each stone was recorded from vendor-specific postprocessing software (Syngo Via) using the Kidney Stones Application. The clinical reference standard of X-ray diffraction analysis was used to assess non-inferiority. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess diagnostic performance of detecting UA stones.ResultsSix pure UA, 47 pure calcium-based, 1 pure cystine, and 3 mixed struvite stones were scanned. All pure UA stones were correctly separated from non-UA stones using SDCT and dsDECT (AUC = 1). For UA stones, median VMR was 0.95–0.99 and DER 1.00–1.02. For non-UA stones, median VMR was 1.4–4.1 and DER 1.39–1.69.ConclusionSDCT spectral reconstructions demonstrate similar performance to those of dsDECT in discriminating UA from non-UA stones in a phantom model.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to (1) assess the diagnostic yield of ultrasounds performed in the emergency department for suspected breast abscess and determine the rates of reimaging, discordance, and emergent intervention in a large, busy safety net hospital and (2) determine clinical factors significantly associated with abscess as a way to improve patient selection for emergent breast ultrasounds.MethodsA total of 581 consecutive breast ultrasounds performed in the emergency department for suspected abscess over 15 months were retrospectively reviewed for imaging, demographics, laboratory data, and physical exam findings. Breast abscess was confirmed by combining imaging, clinical, and laboratory data. Linear logistic regression analysis estimated the likelihood of abscess, and the cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) evaluated diagnostic performance.ResultsFinal diagnoses included abscess (153/581, 26%), cancer (29/581, 5%), granulomatous mastitis (41/581, 7%), normal (120/581, 21%), and other/indeterminate (238/581, 41%). Factors associated with abscess included induration, fluctuance, erythema, drainage, smoking, diabetes, and Black race. Based on these factors, the AUC of the characteristics predictive of abscess was 0.77 (CI, 0.72–0.81). Six breast cancers were not diagnosed on ultrasound. 40% of ultrasounds (231/581) were considered incomplete/inadequate.Conclusion74% (428/581) of emergent breast ultrasounds in our population were negative for abscess, while 21% (6/29) of cancers were not diagnosed, and 40% (231/581) of exams were incomplete/inadequate. Patient selection for emergent ultrasounds can be improved, allowing patients with a low likelihood of abscess to be imaged in a more optimal setting.

Pancreatic cancer statistics are dismal, with a 5-year survival of less than 10%, and more than 50% of patients presenting with metastatic disease. Metabolic reprogramming is an emerging hallmark of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. CPI-613 is a novel anticancer agent that selectively targets the altered form of mitochondrial energy metabolism in tumour cells, causing changes in mitochondrial enzyme activities and redox status that lead to apoptosis, necrosis, and autophagy of tumour cells. We aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose of CPI-613 when used in combination with modified FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (comprising oxaliplatin, leucovorin, irinotecan, and fluorouracil) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. In this single-centre, open-label, dose-escalation phase 1 trial, we recruited adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma from the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, NC, USA). Patients had good bone marrow, liver and kidney function, and good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status 0–1). We studied CPI-613 in combination with modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin at 65 mg/m2, leucovorin at 400 mg/m2, irinotecan at 140 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus followed by 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h). We applied a two-stage dose-escalation scheme (single patient and traditional 3+3 design). In the single-patient stage, one patient was accrued per dose level. The starting dose of CPI-613 was 500 mg/m2 per day; the dose level was then escalated by doubling the previous dose if there were no adverse events worse than grade 2 within 4 weeks attributed as probably or definitely related to CPI-613. The traditional 3+3 dose-escalation stage was triggered if toxic effects attributed as probably or definitely related to CPI-613 were grade 2 or worse. The dose level for CPI-613 for the first cohort in the traditional dose-escalation stage was the same as that used in the last cohort of the single-patient dose-escalation stage. The primary objective was to establish the maximum tolerated dose of CPI-613 (as assessed by dose-limiting toxicities). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01835041, and is closed to recruitment. Between April 22, 2013, and Jan 8, 2016, we enrolled 20 patients. The maximum tolerated dose of CPI-613 was 500 mg/m2. The median number of treatment cycles given at the maximum tolerated dose was 11 (IQR 4–19). Median follow-up of the 18 patients treated at the maximum tolerated dose was 378 days (IQR 250–602). Two patients enrolled at a higher dose of 1000 mg/m2, and both had a dose-limiting toxicity. Two unexpected serious adverse events occurred, both for the first patient enrolled. Expected serious adverse events were: thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and lymphopenia (all for patient number 2; anaemia and lymphopenia were dose-limiting toxicities); hyperglycaemia (in patient number 7); hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia, and sepsis (patient number 11); and neutropenia (patient number 20). No deaths due to adverse events were reported. For the 18 patients given the maximum tolerated dose, the most common grade 3–4 non-haematological adverse events were hyperglycaemia (ten [55%] patients), hypokalaemia (six [33%]), peripheral sensory neuropathy (five [28%]), diarrhoea (five [28%]), and abdominal pain (four [22%]). The most common grade 3–4 haematological adverse events were neutropenia (five [28%] of 18 patients), lymphopenia (five [28%]), anaemia (four [22%], and thrombocytopenia in three [17%]). Sensory neuropathy (all grade 1–3) was recorded in 17 (94%) of the 18 patients and was managed with dose de-escalation or discontinuation per standard of care. No patients died while on active treatment; 11 study participants died, with cause of death as terminal pancreatic cancer. Of the 18 patients given the maximum tolerated dose, 11 (61%) achieved an objective (complete or partial) response. A maximum tolerated dose of CPI-613 was established at 500 mg/m2 when used in combination with modified FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The findings of clinical activity will require validation in a phase 2 trial. Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.

Gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforation is a life-threatening condition that can occur at any site along the alimentary tract. Early perforation detection and intervention significantly improves patient outcome. With a high sensitivity for pneumoperitoneum, computed tomography (CT) is widely accepted as the diagnostic modality of choice when a perforated hollow viscus is suspected. While confirming the presence of a perforation is critical, clinical management and surgical technique also depend on localizing the perforation site. CT is accurate in detecting the site of perforation, with segmental bowel wall thickening, focal bowel wall defect, or bubbles of extraluminal gas concentrated in close proximity to the bowel wall shown to be the most specific findings. In this article, we will present the causes for perforation at each site throughout the GI tract and review the patterns that can lead to prospective diagnosis and perforation site localization utilizing CT images of surgically proven cases.

Until recently, most solid renal neoplasms without macroscopic fat were presumed to represent renal cell carcinoma and were indiscriminately treated with nephrectomy. Expanding surgical options and ablative technologies, a growing acceptance of renal mass biopsy, the advent of targeted molecular agents, and advances in our understanding of tumor biology have challenged the wisdom of this approach and are ushering in a potential new era in which therapy is linked to histologic subtype and cytogenetics. This approach mandates evolution of our diagnostic algorithm beyond the distinction between solid and cystic and enhancing and nonenhancing. Computed tomography (CT) has traditionally been the imaging technique of choice for evaluating potential solid renal tumors, in large part due to its widespread availability, high spatial resolution, calcium discrimination, and multiphase, enhanced imaging capabilities. For the most part, however, CT is limited to characterization based upon the attenuation and enhancement characteristics of a lesion and necessitates exposure of patients to ionizing radiation. For these latter reasons, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being increasingly used to characterize solid renal masses. The purpose of this manuscript is to review our imaging approach to solid renal masses in adults utilizing MRI with an emphasis on a multiparametric approach augmented by clinical data.

Purpose To define important elements of a structured radiology report of a CT or MRI performed to evaluate an indeterminate renal mass. Methods IRB approval was waived for this multi-site prospective quality improvement study. A 35-question survey investigating elements of a CT or MRI report describing a renal mass was created through an iterative process by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on renal cell carcinoma. Surveys were distributed to consenting abdominal radiologists and urologists at nine academic institutions. Consensus within and between specialties was defined as ≥70% agreement. Respondent rates were compared with Chi Square test. Results The response rate was 68% (117/171; 55% [39/71] urologists, 78% [78/100] radiologists). Inter-specialty consensus was that the following were essential: mass size with comparison to prior imaging, mass type (cystic vs. solid), presence of fat, presence of enhancement, and radiologic stage. Urologists were more likely to prefer the Nephrometry score (75% [27/36] vs. 22% [17/76], p  < 0.0001), quantitative reporting of enhancement on CT (85% [32/38] vs. 46% [36/77], p  < 0.0001), and mass position with respect to the renal polar lines (67% [24/36] vs. 36% [27/76], p  = 0.002). There was inter-specialty consensus that the Bosniak classification for cystic masses was preferred. Most urologists (60% [21/35]) preferred management recommendations be omitted for solid masses or Bosniak III–IV cystic masses. Conclusions Important elements to include in a CT or MRI report of an indeterminate renal mass are critical diagnostic features, the Bosniak classification if relevant, and the most likely specific diagnosis when feasible; including management recommendations is controversial.

Objective To estimate the incidence of missed gastroduodenal ulcers on routine abdominal computed tomography (CT) and identify findings and methods to improve sensitivity of CT interpretation for peptic ulcers. Materials and methods This is a retrospective chart and imaging review. Two blinded readers independently reviewed CTs performed within 7 days prior to endoscopy of 114 subjects; this included 57 consecutive subjects with proven gastroduodenal ulcers intermixed with 57 subjects with endoscopically normal examinations. Presence, location and size of ulcer crater, and ancillary findings (mural edema, asymmetric wall thickening, focal fat stranding, regional lymph nodes, and extraluminal gas) were recorded before and after review of multiplanar reformatted images. Radiology reports were then reviewed to determine if an ulcer was identified prospectively. Results Thirty-one ulcers (54%) were radiographically occult, missed by both readers. Thirteen ulcers were correctly and independently identified by both readers (sensitivity/specificity = 30%/100%). With review of multiplanar reformats, sensitivity and accuracy increased for both readers. When two or more ancillary findings were identified, the odds ratio of a true ulcer being present was greater than 5.6 ( P  = 0.0001). Both size and location of ulcer were important for detection; readers were more likely to identify gastric ulcers compared to duodenal or marginal ulcers ( P  = 0.02). Only 3/13 definitely visible ulcers were correctly identified during initial CT interpretation. Conclusions Although CT has low sensitivity for peptic ulcer disease, the miss rate for visible peptic ulcers is high. Increased awareness, multiplanar imaging review, and identification of ancillary findings may improve sensitivity for gastroduodenal ulcers.