Search

Background: Postoperative liver failure (PLF) is a severe complication after major liver resection (MLR). To increase the safety of patients, clinical bedside tests are of great importance. However, limitations of their applicability and validity impair their value. Methods: Preoperative measurements of the liver maximum capacity (LiMAx) were performed in n = 40 patients, who underwent MLR (≥3 segments). Matched postoperative LiMAx was measured in n = 21 patients. Liver function was compared between pretreated patients (n = 11 with portal vein embolisation (PVE) and n = 19 patients with preoperative chemotherapy) and therapy naïve patients. The LiMAx values were compared with liver-specific blood parameters and volumetric analysis. Results: In total, n = 40 patients were enrolled in this study. The majority of patients (n = 33; 82.5%) had high preoperative LiMAx values (>315 µg/kg/h), while only seven patients (17.5%) had medium values (140–315 µg/kg/h), and none of the patients had low values (<140 µg/kg/h). A comparison of pretreated patients (with PVE and/or chemotherapy) and therapy naïve patients showed no significant difference in the preoperative LiMAx values (p > 0.05). The preoperative LiMAx values were significantly higher than the matched postoperative values on postoperative day 1 (p < 0.0001). A comparison between the expected and measured postoperative LiMAx showed a difference (≥10%) in 7 out of 13 patients (53.8%). After an initial postoperative decrease in the LiMAx, the patients without complications (n = 12) showed a continuous increase until 14 days after surgery. In the patients with postoperative complications, a decrease in the LiMAx was associated with a prolonged recovery. Conclusions: For patients undergoing MLR within the 0.5% rule, which is the clinical gold standard, the LiMAx values do not offer any additional information. Additionally, the LiMAx may have reflected liver function, but it did not deliver additional information regarding postoperative liver recovery. The clinical use of LiMAx might be relevant in selected patients beyond the 0.5% rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• MOLLI and T1FLASH sequences can be used for T1mapping of the prostate. • Contrast media accumulation at the bladder base limits T1mapping. • In post-GBCA, T1FLASH yields superior image quality over MOLLI sequences. • T1FLASH demonstrates reduced artifact burden over MOLLI sequences. To assess artifact burden and image quality of different MRI T1 mapping techniques of the prostate. Participants with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) were prospectively enrolled from June-October 2022 and examined with multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI; 3 T scanner; T1wi, T2wi, DWI und DCE). T1 mapping was performed before and after administration of gadolinium-based contrast-agent (GBCA) using (i) a modified Look-Locker inversion (MOLLI) technique and (ii) a novel single-shot T1FLASH inversion recovery technique. T2wi, DWI, T1FLASH and MOLLI sequences were systematically examined regarding prevalence of artifacts and image quality using a 5-point Likert-Scale. A total of n = 100 patients were included (median age: 68 years). T1FLASH maps (pre-and post-GBCA) showed metal artifacts in 7% of cases and susceptibility artifacts in 1%. For MOLLI maps, pre-GBCA metal and susceptibility artifacts were documented in 6.5% of cases each. MOLLI maps post-GBCA showed artifacts in 59% of cases resulting primarily from urinary GBCA excretion and GBCA accumulation at the bladder base (p < 0.01 versus T1FLASH post-GBCA). Image quality for T1FLASH pre-GBCA was rated at a mean 4.9+/-0.4 and for MOLLI at 4.8+/-0.6 (p = 0.14). Post-GBCA image quality was rated at a mean 4.9+/-0.4 for T1FLASH and at 3.7+/-1.1 for MOLLI (p < 0.001). T1FLASH maps provide a fast and robust method for quantification of T1 relaxation times of the prostate. T1FLASH is suitable for T1 mapping of the prostate following administration of contrast agents, while MOLLI T1 mapping is impaired through GBCA accumulation at the bladder base leading to severe image artifacts and reduced image quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate imaging findings of esophageal motility disorders on dynamic real-time.Material and Methods: 102 patients with GERD-like symptoms were included in this retrospective study between 2015-2018. Dynamic real-time MRI visualized the transit of a 10 mL pineapple juice bolus through the esophagus and EGJ with a temporal resolution of 40 ms. Dynamic and anatomic parameters were measured by consensus reading. Imaging findings were compared to HRM utilizing the Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0.Results: All 102 patients completed real-time MRI in a median examination time of 15 min. On HRM, 14 patients presented with disorders with EGJ outlet obstruction (EGJOO) (13.7 %), 7 patients with major disorders of peristalsis (6.9 %), and 32 patients with minor disorders of peristalsis (31.4 %). HRM was normal in 49 patients (48.0 %). Incomplete bolus clearance was significantly more frequent in patients with esophageal motility disorders on HRM than in patients with normal HRM (p = 0.0002). In patients with motility disorders with EGJOO and major disorders of peristalsis, the esophageal diameter tended to be wider (23.6 ± 8.0 vs. 21.2 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.089) and the sphincter length longer (19.7 ± 7.3 vs. 16.7 ± 3.0 mm, p = 0.091) compared to patients with normal HRM. 3/7 patients with achalasia type II were correctly identified by real-time MRI and one further achalasia type II patient was diagnosed with a motility disorder on MRI films. The other 3/7 patients presented no specific imaging features.Conclusion: Real-time MRI is an auxiliary diagnostic tool for the assessment of swallowing events. Imaging parameters may assist in the detection of esophageal motility disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:  Cross-institutional establishment of standardized protocols for CT and MR imaging of primary liver and pancreas tumors in an oncological center., Materials and Methods:  This prospective dual-institution study was approved by the local IRBs. Minimum requirements (phases, sequences, slice thickness) for imaging of primary liver and pancreas tumors were defined and implemented at both sites. Between 06/19 and 08/19 in-house examinations were evaluated in terms of compliance with defined protocols and image quality. In addition, extramural examinations that were demonstrated at interdisciplinary tumor board meetings in the same study period were reviewed. Results were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics, and differences between centers, modalities and organs assessed (Fisher-exact Test, p < 0.05 deemed significant)., Results:  480 data sets (397 internal, 83 extramural) were included in this study and analyzed. Overall protocol compliance for in-house examinations was 93.5 % (371/397 datasets), without statistical significant difference between the two institutions (p = 0.0615). External studies met minimum requirements in 48.2 % (40/83 datasets). Regarding in-house imaging, significant differences were observed between CT of the liver and the pancreas (p < 0.05) and between CT and MRI of the pancreas (p < 0.05)., Conclusion:  As demonstrated in this pilot project, cross-institutional establishment of standardized imaging protocols is feasible with a compliance rate of more than 90 %. Standardized imaging protocols may serve as a quality indicator in oncological imaging, and over time, improve cross-institutional patient care., Key Points:   · Cross-institutional establishment of standardized imaging protocols is feasible with high compliance.. · Standards may serve as a quality indicator in oncological imaging.. · In perspective, cross-institutional patient care may be improved.., Citation Format: · Römermann I, Al-Bourini O, Seif Amir Hosseini A et al. Cross-insitutional standardization of imaging protocols - A pilot study within the scope of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Lower Saxony. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 410 - 416., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess current use and acute safety profiles of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) in cardiac MRI given recent suspensions of GBCA approval., Materials and Methods: Patients were retrospectively included from the multinational multicenter European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR) MR/CT Registry collected between January 2013 and October 2019. GBCA-associated acute adverse events (AAEs) were classified as mild (self-limiting), moderate (pronounced AAE requiring medical management), and severe (life threatening). Multivariable generalized linear mixed-effect models were used to assess AAE likelihood., Results: A total of 154 779 patients (average age, 53 years ± 19 [standard deviation]; 99 106 men) who underwent cardiac MRI were included, the majority of whom underwent administration of GBCAs (94.2% [ n = 145 855]). While linear GBCAs were used in 15.2% of examinations through 2011, their use decreased to less than 1% in 2018 and 2019. Overall, 0.36% ( n = 556) of AAEs were documented (mild, 0.12% [ n = 178]; moderate, 0.21% [ n = 331]; severe, 0.03% [ n = 47]). For nonenhanced cardiac MRI, examination-related events were reported in 2.59% (231 of 8924) of cases, the majority of which were anxiety (0.98% [ n = 87]) and dyspnea (0.93% [ n = 83]). AAE rates varied significantly by pharmacologic stressor, GBCA molecular structure (macrocyclic vs linear GBCA: multivariable odds ratio, 0.634; 95% confidence interval: 0.452, 0.888; P = .008), GBCA subtype, and imaging indication., Conclusion: Gadolinium-based contrast agent administration changed according to recent regulatory decisions, with use of macrocyclic agents almost exclusively in 2018 and 2019; these agents also demonstrated a favorable acute safety profile. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020., Competing Interests: Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest: J.U. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: received a speaker fee from Bayer HealthCare. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships. O.A. disclosed no relevant relationships. R.S. disclosed no relevant relationships. M.F. disclosed no relevant relationships. R.V. disclosed no relevant relationships. J.B. disclosed no relevant relationships. J.L. disclosed no relevant relationships. M.G. Activities related to the present article: disclosed no relevant relationships. Activities not related to the present article: received a speaker honorarium and travel support from Bayer HealthCare, Bracco Imaging, Siemens HealthCare, Philips Healthcare, GE Healthcare, and Circle Health. Other relationships: disclosed no relevant relationships., (2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.)