Search

Background Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI is the most sensitive method for detection of breast cancer. However, due to high costs and retention of intravenously injected gadolinium-based contrast agent, screening with DCE-MRI is only recommended for patients who are at high risk for developing breast cancer. Thus, a noncontrast-enhanced alternative to DCE is desirable. Purpose To investigate whether velocity selective arterial spin labeling (VS-ASL) can be used to identify increased perfusion and vascularity within breast lesions compared to surrounding tissue. Study type Prospective. Population Eight breast cancer patients. Field strength/sequence A 3 T; VS-ASL with multislice single-shot gradient-echo echo-planar-imaging readout. Assessment VS-ASL scans were independently assessed by three radiologists, with 3-25 years of experience in breast radiology. Scans were scored on lesion visibility and artifacts, based on a 3-point Likert scale. A score of 1 corresponded to "lesions being distinguishable from background" (lesion visibility), and "no or few artifacts visible, artifacts can be distinguished from blood signal" (artifact score). A distinction was made between mass and nonmass lesions (based on BI-RADS lexicon), as assessed in the standard clinical exam. Statistical tests Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for interobserver agreement. Results The ICC was 0.77 for lesion visibility and 0.84 for the artifact score. Overall, mass lesions had a mean score of 1.27 on lesion visibility and 1.53 on the artifact score. Nonmass lesions had a mean score of 2.11 on lesion visibility and 2.11 on the artifact score. Data conclusion We have demonstrated the technical feasibility of bilateral whole-breast perfusion imaging using VS-ASL in breast cancer patients. Evidence level 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer (EC), the value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) after fluorine-18 labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET/CT) is questionable. Retrospectively, we assessed the impact of EUS after PET/CT on the given treatment in EC patients.METHODS: During the period 2009-2015, 318 EC patients were staged as T1-4aN0-3M0 with hybrid (18)F-FDG-PET/CT or (18)F-FDG-PET with CT and EUS if applicable in a nonspecific order. We determined the impact of EUS on the given treatment in 279 patients who also were staged with EUS. EUS had clinical consequences if it changed curability, extent of radiation fields or lymph node resection (AJCC stations 2-5), and when the performed fine-needle aspiration (FNA) provided conclusive information of suspicious lymph node.RESULTS: EUS had an impact in 80 (28.7%) patients; it changed the radiation field in 63 (22.6%), curability in 5 (1.8%), lymphadenectomy in 48 (17.2%), and FNA was additional in 21 (7.5%). In patients treated with nCRT (n = 194), EUS influenced treatment in 53 (27.3%) patients; in 38 (19.6%) the radiation field changed, in 3 (1.5%) the curability, in 35 (18.0%) the lymphadenectomy, and in 17 (8.8%) FNA was additional. EUS influenced both the extent of radiation field and nodal resection in 31 (16.0%) nCRT patients.CONCLUSIONS: EUS had an impact on the given treatment in approximately 29%. In most patients, the magnitude of EUS found expression in the extent of radiotherapy target volume delineation to upper/high mediastinal lymph nodes.

Background: Although essential in treatment decision making, clinical nodal (cN) staging in esophageal cancer (EC) remains difficult. We assessed the rate of nodal up- and downstaging and its prognostic value on 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) in EC patients treated with surgery-alone or with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: For this retrospective study, we included 395 EC patients who underwent a curative esophagectomy with or without nCRT between 2000 and 2015. The surgery-alone and nCRT group were matched on clinical T-stage (cT), cN-stage, and histopathological type using propensity score matching (n=270). Staging consisted of PET with CT, or PET/CT, and endoscopic ultrasonography (n = 235). We compared cN and pathological N-stage (pN) and scored correct, down- and upstaging. The prognostic value of nodal up- and downstaging and localization of node metastases on 5-year DFS were assessed with multivariate Cox regression analysis (factors with a P-value 25% nodal downstaging. This inaccuracy might impede assessment of true nodal response to nCRT, affording dubious decisions for a 'wait-and-see' strategy.

Background: Clinical nodal (cN) staging is a key element in treatment decisions in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). The reliability of cN status regarding the effect on response and survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with esophagectomy was evaluated in determining the up- and downstaged pathological nodal (pN) status after surgery alone. Material and methods: From a prospective database, we included all 395 EC patients who had surgery with curative intent with or without nCRT between 2000 and 2015. All patients were staged by a standard pretreatment protocol: 16-64 mdCT, 18 F-FDG-PET or 18 F-FDG-PET/CT and EUS ± FNA. After propensity score matching on baseline clinical tumor and nodal (cT/N) stage and histopathology, a surgery-alone and nCRT group (each N = 135) were formed. Clinical and pathological N stage was scored as equal (cN = pN), downstaged (cN > pN) or upstaged (cN p value Results: The surgery-alone and nCRT group did not differ in cT/N status. Pathologic examination revealed equal staging (32 vs. 27%), nodal up (43 vs. 16%) and downstaging (25 vs. 56%), respectively (p p = .002) and lymph-angioinvasion (p = .016) in surgery-alone, and upper abdominal cN metastases (p = .012) and lymph node ratio (p = .034) in the nCRT group. Conclusions: Despite modern staging methods, correct cN staging remains difficult in EC. Nodal overstaging (cN > pN) occurred more often than understaging impeding an adequate assessment of pathologic complete response and prognosis after nCRT. Preoperative assessment of true nodal response after nCRT in EC remains difficult with clinical nodal upstaging (16% vs. 43%) and downstaging (56% vs. 25%) after nCRT and surgery alone, respectively.

BackgroundA substantial proportion of all pheochromocytomas is currently detected during the evaluation of an adrenal incidentaloma. Recently, it has been suggested that biochemical testing to rule out pheochromocytoma is unnecessary in case of an adrenal incidentaloma with an unenhanced attenuation value ≤10 Hounsfield Units (HU) at computed tomography (CT).ObjectivesWe aimed to determine the sensitivity of the 10 HU threshold value to exclude a pheochromocytoma.MethodsRetrospective multicenter study with systematic reassessment of preoperative unenhanced CT scans performed in patients in whom a histopathologically proven pheochromocytoma had been diagnosed. Unenhanced attenuation values were determined independently by two experienced radiologists. Sensitivity of the 10 HU threshold was calculated, and interobserver consistency was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).Results214 patients were identified harboring a total number of 222 pheochromocytomas. Maximum tumor diameter was 51 (39–74) mm. The mean attenuation value within the region of interest was 36 ± 10 HU. Only one pheochromocytoma demonstrated an attenuation value ≤10 HU, resulting in a sensitivity of 99.6% (95% CI: 97.5–99.9). ICC was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.75–0.86) with a standard error of measurement of 7.3 HU between observers.ConclusionThe likelihood of a pheochromocytoma with an unenhanced attenuation value ≤10 HU on CT is very low. The interobserver consistency in attenuation measurement is excellent. Our study supports the recommendation that in patients with an adrenal incidentaloma biochemical testing for ruling out pheochromocytoma is only indicated in adrenal tumors with an unenhanced attenuation value >10 HU.