Search

Contains fulltext : 225849.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. METHODS: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists' experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement >/= 70% (score 7-9) and disagreement of /= 50% of votes. RESULTS: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. CONCLUSIONS: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. KEY POINTS: * Multi-parametric MRI in the

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus stateme

Contains fulltext : 225849.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: This study aims to define consensus-based criteria for acquiring and reporting prostate MRI and establishing prerequisites for image quality. METHODS: A total of 44 leading urologists and urogenital radiologists who are experts in prostate cancer imaging from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) and EAU Section of Urologic Imaging (ESUI) participated in a Delphi consensus process. Panellists completed two rounds of questionnaires with 55 items under three headings: image quality assessment, interpretation and reporting, and radiologists' experience plus training centres. Of 55 questions, 31 were rated for agreement on a 9-point scale, and 24 were multiple-choice or open. For agreement items, there was consensus agreement with an agreement >/= 70% (score 7-9) and disagreement of /= 50% of votes. RESULTS: Twenty-four out of 31 of agreement items and 11/16 of other questions reached consensus. Agreement statements were (1) reporting of image quality should be performed and implemented into clinical practice; (2) for interpretation performance, radiologists should use self-performance tests with histopathology feedback, compare their interpretation with expert-reading and use external performance assessments; and (3) radiologists must attend theoretical and hands-on courses before interpreting prostate MRI. Limitations are that the results are expert opinions and not based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There was no consensus on outcomes statements of prostate MRI assessment as quality marker. CONCLUSIONS: An ESUR and ESUI expert panel showed high agreement (74%) on issues improving prostate MRI quality. Checking and reporting of image quality are mandatory. Prostate radiologists should attend theoretical and hands-on courses, followed by supervised education, and must perform regular performance assessments. KEY POINTS: * Multi-parametric MRI in the

Contains fulltext : 215784.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >/=70% agreement and

Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) became recognised in investigating those with suspected prostate cancer between 2010 and 2012; in the USA, the preventative task force moratorium on PSA screening was a strong catalyst. In a few short years, it has been adopted into daily urological and oncological practice. The pace of clinical uptake, born along by countless papers proclaiming high accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, has sparked much debate about the timing of mpMRI within the traditional biopsy-driven clinical pathways. There are strongly held opposing views on using mpMRI as a triage test regarding the need for biopsy and/or guiding the biopsy pattern. Objective To review the evidence base and present a position paper on the role of mpMRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Methods A subgroup of experts from the ESUR Prostate MRI Working Group conducted literature review and face to face and electronic exchanges to draw up a position statement. Results This paper considers diagnostic strategies for clinically significant prostate cancer; current national and international guidance; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI in detection of clinically significant and clinically insignificant neoplasms; the impact of pre-biopsy mpMRI on biopsy strategies and targeting; the notion of mpMRI within a wider risk evaluation on a patient by patient basis; the problems that beset mpMRI including inter-observer variability. Conclusions The paper concludes with a set of suggestions for using mpMRI to influence who to biopsy and who not to biopsy at diagnosis.

Contains fulltext : 215784.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >/=70% agreement and

Contains fulltext : 215784.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >/=70% agreement and

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Background and purpose: Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is superior to computed tomography (CT) in radiotherapy of brain tumours. In this study an open low-field MR-simulator is evaluated in order to eliminate the cost of and time spent on additional CT scanning. Materials and methods: Eleven patients with brain tumours are both CT and MR scanned and the defined tumour volumes are compared. Image distortions and dose calculations based on CT density correction, MR unit density and MR bulk density, bone segmentation are performed. Monte Carlo simulations using 4 and 8 MV beams on homogeneous and bone segmented mediums are performed. Results: Mean MR and CT tumour volumes of approximately the same size ((V-MR) over bar = 55 +/- 34 cm(3) and (V-CT) over bar = 51 +/- 32 cm(3)) are observed, but for individual patients, small intersection volumes are observed. The MR images show negligible distortion within radial distances below 12 cm (<1.5 mm). On unit density mediums, dose errors above 2% are observed in low dose areas. Monte Carlo simulations with 4 MV photons show large deviations in dose (>2%) just behind the skull if bone is not segmented. Conclusions: It is feasible to use an MR-simulator for radiotherapy planning of brain tumours if bone is segmented or a careful choice of beam energy (>4 MV) is selected. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved Udgivelsesdato: 2008/4

Background and purpose: Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is superior to computed tomography (CT) in radiotherapy of brain tumours. In this study an open low-field MR-simulator is evaluated in order to eliminate the cost of and time spent on additional CT scanning. Materials and methods: Eleven patients with brain tumours are both CT and MR scanned and the defined tumour volumes are compared. Image distortions and dose calculations based on CT density correction, MR unit density and MR bulk density, bone segmentation are performed. Monte Carlo simulations using 4 and 8 MV beams on homogeneous and bone segmented mediums are performed. Results: Mean MR and CT tumour volumes of approximately the same size ((V-MR) over bar = 55 +/- 34 cm(3) and (V-CT) over bar = 51 +/- 32 cm(3)) are observed, but for individual patients, small intersection volumes are observed. The MR images show negligible distortion within radial distances below 12 cm (<1.5 mm). On unit density mediums, dose errors above 2% are observed in low dose areas. Monte Carlo simulations with 4 MV photons show large deviations in dose (>2%) just behind the skull if bone is not segmented. Conclusions: It is feasible to use an MR-simulator for radiotherapy planning of brain tumours if bone is segmented or a careful choice of beam energy (>4 MV) is selected. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved Udgivelsesdato: 2008/4

Contains fulltext : 53230.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Recently, a new oral liver-specific manganese-based MR agent (CMC-001) has been introduced. This contrast medium is delivered to the liver in high concentrations in the portal vein and very low doses in the hepatic artery, as only small amounts of manganese enter the general circulation. It is taken up by the hepatocytes and excreted in the bile. Our initial experience with the new MR contrast medium in a variety of patients is reported. A total of 20 patients (11 males and 9 females) were studied with MR imaging 2 h after oral ingestion of the contrast agent. Sixteen patients were referred for evaluation of focal liver lesion(s), whereas in the remaining four patients, evaluation of the biliary tract was requested. In the 17 patients without biliary obstruction, there was an increased signal intensity of the liver parenchyma, whereas in the three patients with biliary obstruction, the uptake was delayed. There was excellent visualization of the biliary system on the T1-weighted images in the 16 patients without biliary obstruction referred for evaluation of a focal liver lesion. In seven patients, the uptake was patchy. In patients with focal liver lesions or biliary tract diseases, it is possible to increase the signal intensity of the liver parenchyma after the oral intake of CMC-001. In patients without biliary tract obstruction, the biliary system is easily visualized. Oral manganese seems to be useful in hepatobiliary MRI. Further research is strongly warranted.

Contains fulltext : 53230.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Recently, a new oral liver-specific manganese-based MR agent (CMC-001) has been introduced. This contrast medium is delivered to the liver in high concentrations in the portal vein and very low doses in the hepatic artery, as only small amounts of manganese enter the general circulation. It is taken up by the hepatocytes and excreted in the bile. Our initial experience with the new MR contrast medium in a variety of patients is reported. A total of 20 patients (11 males and 9 females) were studied with MR imaging 2 h after oral ingestion of the contrast agent. Sixteen patients were referred for evaluation of focal liver lesion(s), whereas in the remaining four patients, evaluation of the biliary tract was requested. In the 17 patients without biliary obstruction, there was an increased signal intensity of the liver parenchyma, whereas in the three patients with biliary obstruction, the uptake was delayed. There was excellent visualization of the biliary system on the T1-weighted images in the 16 patients without biliary obstruction referred for evaluation of a focal liver lesion. In seven patients, the uptake was patchy. In patients with focal liver lesions or biliary tract diseases, it is possible to increase the signal intensity of the liver parenchyma after the oral intake of CMC-001. In patients without biliary tract obstruction, the biliary system is easily visualized. Oral manganese seems to be useful in hepatobiliary MRI. Further research is strongly warranted.

Contains fulltext : 53230.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Recently, a new oral liver-specific manganese-based MR agent (CMC-001) has been introduced. This contrast medium is delivered to the liver in high concentrations in the portal vein and very low doses in the hepatic artery, as only small amounts of manganese enter the general circulation. It is taken up by the hepatocytes and excreted in the bile. Our initial experience with the new MR contrast medium in a variety of patients is reported. A total of 20 patients (11 males and 9 females) were studied with MR imaging 2 h after oral ingestion of the contrast agent. Sixteen patients were referred for evaluation of focal liver lesion(s), whereas in the remaining four patients, evaluation of the biliary tract was requested. In the 17 patients without biliary obstruction, there was an increased signal intensity of the liver parenchyma, whereas in the three patients with biliary obstruction, the uptake was delayed. There was excellent visualization of the biliary system on the T1-weighted images in the 16 patients without biliary obstruction referred for evaluation of a focal liver lesion. In seven patients, the uptake was patchy. In patients with focal liver lesions or biliary tract diseases, it is possible to increase the signal intensity of the liver parenchyma after the oral intake of CMC-001. In patients without biliary tract obstruction, the biliary system is easily visualized. Oral manganese seems to be useful in hepatobiliary MRI. Further research is strongly warranted.

Contains fulltext : 51338.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was a preliminary evaluation of a new oral, manganese-based, liver-specific contrast medium (CMC-001; CMC Contrast AB, Malmoe, Sweden) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with liver metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 10 consecutive patients with known liver metastases. Patients underwent abdominal MRI as a supplement to routine diagnostics. Patients fasted for at least 10 hours before ingesting CMC-001 (1.6 g manganese chloride tetrahydrate, 1 g alanine, and 1,600 IU vitamin D3 were dissolved in water). MRI took place before and 2 hours after drinking CMC-001. The 1.5-T MRI protocol included two-dimensional T1w sequences to visualize metastases. T2w and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences were used to identify cysts and blood vessels correspondingly. RESULTS: The intake of CMC-001 caused an increase in the signal intensity of the "healthy" liver tissue, making the internal structure of the liver significantly better visualized. Compared with our routine examinations, MRI showed more metastases in four patients and allowed determining a more precise outline of metastases. CONCLUSION: CMC-001 improves imaging of liver metastases in comparison with computed tomography and with MRI without CMC-001.

Contains fulltext : 51338.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was a preliminary evaluation of a new oral, manganese-based, liver-specific contrast medium (CMC-001; CMC Contrast AB, Malmoe, Sweden) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with liver metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 10 consecutive patients with known liver metastases. Patients underwent abdominal MRI as a supplement to routine diagnostics. Patients fasted for at least 10 hours before ingesting CMC-001 (1.6 g manganese chloride tetrahydrate, 1 g alanine, and 1,600 IU vitamin D3 were dissolved in water). MRI took place before and 2 hours after drinking CMC-001. The 1.5-T MRI protocol included two-dimensional T1w sequences to visualize metastases. T2w and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences were used to identify cysts and blood vessels correspondingly. RESULTS: The intake of CMC-001 caused an increase in the signal intensity of the "healthy" liver tissue, making the internal structure of the liver significantly better visualized. Compared with our routine examinations, MRI showed more metastases in four patients and allowed determining a more precise outline of metastases. CONCLUSION: CMC-001 improves imaging of liver metastases in comparison with computed tomography and with MRI without CMC-001.

Contains fulltext : 51338.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was a preliminary evaluation of a new oral, manganese-based, liver-specific contrast medium (CMC-001; CMC Contrast AB, Malmoe, Sweden) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with liver metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 10 consecutive patients with known liver metastases. Patients underwent abdominal MRI as a supplement to routine diagnostics. Patients fasted for at least 10 hours before ingesting CMC-001 (1.6 g manganese chloride tetrahydrate, 1 g alanine, and 1,600 IU vitamin D3 were dissolved in water). MRI took place before and 2 hours after drinking CMC-001. The 1.5-T MRI protocol included two-dimensional T1w sequences to visualize metastases. T2w and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences were used to identify cysts and blood vessels correspondingly. RESULTS: The intake of CMC-001 caused an increase in the signal intensity of the "healthy" liver tissue, making the internal structure of the liver significantly better visualized. Compared with our routine examinations, MRI showed more metastases in four patients and allowed determining a more precise outline of metastases. CONCLUSION: CMC-001 improves imaging of liver metastases in comparison with computed tomography and with MRI without CMC-001.