Search

Your search keyword '"Logager, V."' showing total 27 results
Start Over Author "Logager, V."
27 results on '"Logager, V."'

1. EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer—an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees

Author

Horwich, A., Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., Bruins, H.M., De Reijke, T.M., De Santis, M., Gillessen, S., James, N., Maclennan, S., Palou, J., Powles, T., Ribal, M.J., Shariat, S.F., Van Der Kwast, T., Xylinas, E., Agarwal, N., Arends, T., Bamias, A., Birtle, A., Black, P.C., Bochner, B.H., Bolla, M., Boormans, J.L., Bossi, A., Briganti, A., Brummelhuis, I., Burger, M., Castellano, D., Cathomas, R., Chiti, A., Choudhury, A., Compérat, E., Crabb, S., Culine, S., De Bari, B., DeBlok, W., De Visschere, P.J.L., Decaestecker, K., Dimitropoulos, K., Dominguez-Escrig, J.L., Fanti, S., Fonteyne, V., Frydenberg, M., Futterer, J.J., Gakis, G., Geavlete, B., Gontero, P., Grubmüller, B., Hafeez, S., Hansel, D.E., Hartmann, A., Hayne, D., Henry, A.M., Hernandez, V., Herr, H., Herrmann, K., Hoskin, P., Huguet, J., Jereczek-Fossa, B.A., Jones, R., Kamat, A.M., Khoo, V., Kiltie, A.E., Krege, S., Ladoire, S., Lara, P.C., Leliveld, A., Linares-Espinós, E., Løgager, V., Lorch, A., Loriot, Y., Meijer, R., Carmen Mir, M., Moschini, M., Mostafid, H., Müller, A.-C., Müller, C.R., N’Dow, J., Necchi, A., Neuzillet, Y., Oddens, J.R., Oldenburg, J., Osanto, S., Oyen, W.J.G., Pacheco-Figueiredo, L., Pappot, H., Patel, M.I., Pieters, B.R., Plass, K., Remzi, M., Retz, M., Richenberg, J., Rink, M., Roghmann, F., Rosenberg, J.E., Rouprêt, M., Rouvière, O., Salembier, C., Salminen, A., Sargos, P., Sengupta, S., Sherif, A., Smeenk, R.J., Smits, A., Stenzl, A., Thalmann, G.N., Tombal, B., Turkbey, B., Vahr Lauridsen, S., Valdagni, R., Van Der Heijden, A.G., Van Poppel, H., Vartolomei, M.D., Veskimäe, E., Vilaseca, A., Vives Rivera, F.A., Wiegel, T., Wiklund, P., Williams, A., Zigeuner, R., and Witjes, J.A.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer

Author

Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Comperat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmuller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinos E, Logager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Muller AC, Muller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Roupret M, Rouviere O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Van der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimae E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A, Witjes JA, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Der Kwast TV, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, De Blok W, J L De Visschere P, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Mir MC, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, J G Oyen W, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Lauridsen SV, Valdagni R, Der Heijden AGV, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Rivera FAV, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Horwich A., UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie, Witjes, Ja, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, Hm, De Reijke, Tm, De Santis, M, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, Mj, Shariat, Sf, Van der Kwast, T, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, Pc, Bochner, Bh, Bolla, M, Boormans, Jl, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Comperat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, De Bari, B, De Blok, W, De Visschere, Pjl, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, Jl, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, Jj, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmuller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, De, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, Am, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, Ba, Jones, R, Kamat, Am, Khoo, V, Kiltie, Ae, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, Pc, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinos, E, Logager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, Mc, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Muller, Ac, Muller, Cr, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, Jr, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, Wjg, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, Mi, Pieters, Br, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, Je, Roupret, M, Rouviere, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, Rj, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, Gn, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, Sv, Valdagni, R, Van der Heijden, Ag, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, Md, Veskimae, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, Fav, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, and Horwich, A

Subjects
Treatment, Consensus, Follow-up, education, Bladder cancer, Diagnosis, Consensu, Delphi, Diagnosi
Abstract

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

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training

Author

Rooij, M. de, Israël, B., Tummers, M.J.G.M., Ahmed, H.U., Barrett, T., Giganti, F., Hamm, B., Logager, V., Padhani, A., Panebianco, V, Puech, P., Richenberg, J., Rouviere, O., Salomon, G., Schoots, I., Veltman, J., Villeirs, G., Walz, J., Barentsz, J.O., Rooij, M. de, Israël, B., Tummers, M.J.G.M., Ahmed, H.U., Barrett, T., Giganti, F., Hamm, B., Logager, V., Padhani, A., Panebianco, V, Puech, P., Richenberg, J., Rouviere, O., Salomon, G., Schoots, I., Veltman, J., Villeirs, G., Walz, J., and Barentsz, J.O.

Abstract

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

Published
2020

5. EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer-An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

Author

Witjes, JA, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, HM, De Reijke, TM, De Santis, M, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, MJ, Shariat, SF, Van der Kwast, T, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, PC, Bochner, BH, Bolla, M, Boormans, JL, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Comperat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, De Bari, B, De Blok, W, De Visschere, PJL, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, JL, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, JJ, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmueller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, DE, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, AM, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, BA, Jones, R, Kamat, AM, Khoo, V, Kiltie, AE, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, PC, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinos, E, Logager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, MC, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Mueller, A-C, Mueller, CR, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, JR, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M, Pieters, BR, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, JE, Roupret, M, Rouviere, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, RJ, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, GN, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, SV, Valdagni, R, Van der Heijden, AG, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, MD, Veskimae, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, FAV, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, Horwich, A, Witjes, JA, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, HM, De Reijke, TM, De Santis, M, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, MJ, Shariat, SF, Van der Kwast, T, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, PC, Bochner, BH, Bolla, M, Boormans, JL, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Comperat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, De Bari, B, De Blok, W, De Visschere, PJL, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, JL, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, JJ, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmueller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, DE, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, AM, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, BA, Jones, R, Kamat, AM, Khoo, V, Kiltie, AE, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, PC, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinos, E, Logager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, MC, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Mueller, A-C, Mueller, CR, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, JR, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, M, Pieters, BR, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, JE, Roupret, M, Rouviere, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, RJ, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, GN, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, SV, Valdagni, R, Van der Heijden, AG, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, MD, Veskimae, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, FAV, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, and Horwich, A

Abstract

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

Published
2020

6. The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer

Author

Richenberg, J., Logager, V., Panebianco, V., Rouviere, O, Villeirs, G., Schoots, I.G. (Ivo), Richenberg, J., Logager, V., Panebianco, V., Rouviere, O, Villeirs, G., and Schoots, I.G. (Ivo)

Abstract

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.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012

Author

Barentsz, J.O., Richenberg, J., Clements, R., Choyke, P.L., Verma, S., Villeirs, G., Rouviere, O., Logager, V., Futterer, J.J., Barentsz, J.O., Richenberg, J., Clements, R., Choyke, P.L., Verma, S., Villeirs, G., Rouviere, O., Logager, V., and Futterer, J.J.

Abstract

Item does not contain fulltext

Published
2012

12. Dosimetric and geometric evaluation of an open low-field magnetic resonance simulator for radiotherapy treatment planning of brain tumours

Author

Kristensen, B.H., Laursen, F.J., Logager, V., Geertsen, P.F., Krarup-Hansen, A., Kristensen, B.H., Laursen, F.J., Logager, V., Geertsen, P.F., and Krarup-Hansen, A.

Abstract

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

Published
2008

13. Initial clinical experience with oral manganese (CMC-001) for liver MR imaging.

Author

Thomsen, H.S., Barentsz, J.O., Burcharth, F., Chabanova, E., Dekker, H.M., Moesgaard, F., Moller, J.M., Leth-Espensen, P., Logager, V., Takahashi, S., Thomsen, H.S., Barentsz, J.O., Burcharth, F., Chabanova, E., Dekker, H.M., Moesgaard, F., Moller, J.M., Leth-Espensen, P., Logager, V., and Takahashi, S.

Abstract

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.

Published
2007

14. Imaging liver metastases with a new oral manganese-based contrast agent.

Author

Chabanova, E., Logager, V., Moller, J.M., Dekker, H.M., Barentsz, J.O., Thomsen, H.S., Chabanova, E., Logager, V., Moller, J.M., Dekker, H.M., Barentsz, J.O., and Thomsen, H.S.

Abstract

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.

Published
2006

16. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Author

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz, Jelle O, Richenberg, Jonathan, Clements, Richard, Choyke, Peter, Verma, Sadhna, Villeirs, Geert, Rouviere, Olivier, Logager, Vibeke, Fütterer, Jurgen J, and European Society of Urogenital Radiology

Abstract

Unlabelled: The aim was to develop clinical guidelines for multi-parametric MRI of the prostate by a group of prostate MRI experts from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), based on literature evidence and consensus expert opinion. True evidence-based guidelines could not be formulated, but a compromise, reflected by "minimal" and "optimal" requirements has been made. The scope of these ESUR guidelines is to promulgate high quality MRI in acquisition and evaluation with the correct indications for prostate cancer across the whole of Europe and eventually outside Europe. The guidelines for the optimal technique and three protocols for "detection", "staging" and "node and bone" are presented. The use of endorectal coil vs. pelvic phased array coil and 1.5 vs. 3 T is discussed. Clinical indications and a PI-RADS classification for structured reporting are presented.Key Points: This report provides guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer. Clinical indications, and minimal and optimal imaging acquisition protocols are provided. A structured reporting system (PI-RADS) is described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2012
Full Text
View/download PDF

18. Prostate cancer: 1.5 T endo-coil dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR spectroscopy--correlation with prostate biopsy and prostatectomy histopathological data.

Author

Chabanova E, Balslev I, Logager V, Hansen A, Jakobsen H, Kromann-Andersen B, Norgaard N, Horn T, Thomsen HS, Chabanova, Elizaveta, Balslev, Ingegerd, Logager, Vibeke, Hansen, Alastair, Jakobsen, Henrik, Kromann-Andersen, Bjarne, Norgaard, Nis, Horn, Thomas, and Thomsen, Henrik S

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate diagnostic accuracy of detection of prostate cancer by magnetic resonance: to evaluate the performance of T2WI, DCEMRI and CSI and to correlate the results with biopsy and radical prostatectomy histopathological data. Materials and Methods: 43 patients, scheduled for radical prostatectomy, underwent prostate MR examination. Prostate cancer was identified by transrectal ultrasonographically (TRUS) guided sextant biopsy. MR examination was performed at 1.5 T with an endorectal MR coil. Cancer localisation was performed on sextant-basis--for comparison between TRUS biopsy, MR techniques and histopathological findings on prostatectomy specimens. Results: Prostate cancer was identified in all 43 patients by combination of the three MR techniques. The detection of prostate cancer on sextant-basis showed sensitivity and specificity: 50% and 91% for TRUS, 72% and 55% for T2WI, 49% and 69% for DCEMRI, and 46% and 78% for CSI. Conclusion: T2WI, DCEMRI and CSI in combination can identify prostate cancer. Further development of MR technologies for these MR methods is necessary to improve the detection of the prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2011
Full Text
View/download PDF

19. EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort

Author

Antoine G. van der Heijden, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Joost L. Boormans, Bogdan Geavlete, Iris Brummelhuis, Andrew K. Williams, Christoph R. Müller, Susanne Vahr Lauridsen, Arturo Chiti, Manish I. Patel, Jonathan E. Rosenberg, Baris Turkbey, Carl Salembier, Thomas Wiegel, Anja Lorch, Valérie Fonteyne, Willem de Blok, Evanguelos Xylinas, Antti Salminen, Ann Henry, Karin Plass, Amir Sherif, Hugh Mostafid, Peter Wiklund, Erik Veskimäe, Hein Van Poppel, Max Bürger, Juan Palou, J. Domínguez-Escrig, Karel Decaestecker, Morgan Rouprêt, Helle Pappot, Paul Sargos, Berardino De Bari, Riccardo Valdagni, Luís Pacheco-Figueiredo, Jorge Huguet, Silke Gillessen, Olivier Rouvière, Maria J. Ribal, Yann Neuzillet, Richard Cathomas, Shaista Hafeez, Robert Jan Smeenk, Mark Frydenberg, Marek Babjuk, Antoni Vilaseca, Maria De Santis, Jonathan Richenberg, Annemarie Leliveld, Tom J.H. Arends, Shomik Sengupta, Vibeke Løgager, Harry W. Herr, Wim J.G. Oyen, Ananya Choudhury, Nicholas D. James, Susanne Osanto, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Vincent Khoo, A. Müller, Neeraj Agarwal, Pieter De Visschere, Bradley R. Pieters, Alberto Briganti, Robert Jones, Peter C. Black, Alberto Bossi, H. Maxim Bruins, Richard P. Meijer, Bertrand Tombal, Ken Herrmann, Donna E. Hansel, M. Carmen Mir, Stéphane Culine, J. Alfred Witjes, Virginia Hernández, Joaquim Bellmunt, Arnulf Stenzl, Eva Compérat, Alan Horwich, Alison Birtle, Jorg R. Oddens, Bernhard Grubmüller, Margitta Retz, Sylvain Ladoire, Marco Moschini, Aristotle Bamias, Simon J. Crabb, Michel Bolla, Theo H. van der Kwast, Steven MacLennan, Michael Rink, Anita Smits, Yohann Loriot, Estefania Linares-Espinós, James N'Dow, Theo M. de Reijke, Thomas Powles, Jurgen J. Fütterer, Arndt Hartmann, Daniel Castellano, Mesut Remzi, Paolo Gontero, Dickon Hayne, Anne E. Kiltie, Richard Zigeuner, Georgios Gakis, Franklin A. Vives Rivera, Stefano Fanti, Susanne Krege, Pedro C. Lara, Mihai Dorin Vartolomei, Ashish M. Kamat, Jan Oldenburg, Peter Hoskin, Andrea Necchi, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa, George N. Thalmann, Bernard H. Bochner, Florian Roghmann, Horwich, A, Babjuk, M, Bellmunt, J, Bruins, Hm, De Reijke, Tm, De Santis, M, Gillessen, S, James, N, Maclennan, S, Palou, J, Powles, T, Ribal, Mj, Shariat, Sf, Van der Kwast, T, Xylinas, E, Agarwal, N, Arends, T, Bamias, A, Birtle, A, Black, Pc, Bochner, Bh, Bolla, M, Boormans, Jl, Bossi, A, Briganti, A, Brummelhuis, I, Burger, M, Castellano, D, Cathomas, R, Chiti, A, Choudhury, A, Comperat, E, Crabb, S, Culine, S, De Bari, B, De Blok, W, De Visschere, Pjl, Decaestecker, K, Dimitropoulos, K, Dominguez-Escrig, Jl, Fanti, S, Fonteyne, V, Frydenberg, M, Futterer, Jj, Gakis, G, Geavlete, B, Gontero, P, Grubmuller, B, Hafeez, S, Hansel, De, Hartmann, A, Hayne, D, Henry, Am, Hernandez, V, Herr, H, Herrmann, K, Hoskin, P, Huguet, J, Jereczek-Fossa, Ba, Jones, R, Kamat, Am, Khoo, V, Kiltie, Ae, Krege, S, Ladoire, S, Lara, Pc, Leliveld, A, Linares-Espinos, E, Logager, V, Lorch, A, Loriot, Y, Meijer, R, Mir, Mc, Moschini, M, Mostafid, H, Muller, Ac, Muller, Cr, N'Dow, J, Necchi, A, Neuzillet, Y, Oddens, Jr, Oldenburg, J, Osanto, S, Oyen, Wjg, Pacheco-Figueiredo, L, Pappot, H, Patel, Mi, Pieters, Br, Plass, K, Remzi, M, Retz, M, Richenberg, J, Rink, M, Roghmann, F, Rosenberg, Je, Roupret, M, Rouviere, O, Salembier, C, Salminen, A, Sargos, P, Sengupta, S, Sherif, A, Smeenk, Rj, Smits, A, Stenzl, A, Thalmann, Gn, Tombal, B, Turkbey, B, Lauridsen, Sv, Valdagni, R, Van der Heijden, Ag, Van Poppel, H, Vartolomei, Md, Veskimae, E, Vilaseca, A, Rivera, Fav, Wiegel, T, Wiklund, P, Williams, A, Zigeuner, R, Witjes, Ja, Radiation Oncology, Horwich A, Babjuk M, Bellmunt J, Bruins HM, De Reijke TM, De Santis M, Gillessen S, James N, Maclennan S, Palou J, Powles T, Ribal MJ, Shariat SF, Van Der Kwast T, Xylinas E, Agarwal N, Arends T, Bamias A, Birtle A, Black PC, Bochner BH, Bolla M, Boormans JL, Bossi A, Briganti A, Brummelhuis I, Burger M, Castellano D, Cathomas R, Chiti A, Choudhury A, Compérat E, Crabb S, Culine S, De Bari B, DeBlok W, De Visschere PJL, Decaestecker K, Dimitropoulos K, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Fanti S, Fonteyne V, Frydenberg M, Futterer JJ, Gakis G, Geavlete B, Gontero P, Grubmüller B, Hafeez S, Hansel DE, Hartmann A, Hayne D, Henry AM, Hernandez V, Herr H, Herrmann K, Hoskin P, Huguet J, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Jones R, Kamat AM, Khoo V, Kiltie AE, Krege S, Ladoire S, Lara PC, Leliveld A, Linares-Espinós E, Løgager V, Lorch A, Loriot Y, Meijer R, Carmen Mir M, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Müller AC, Müller CR, N'Dow J, Necchi A, Neuzillet Y, Oddens JR, Oldenburg J, Osanto S, Oyen WJG, Pacheco-Figueiredo L, Pappot H, Patel MI, Pieters BR, Plass K, Remzi M, Retz M, Richenberg J, Rink M, Roghmann F, Rosenberg JE, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Salembier C, Salminen A, Sargos P, Sengupta S, Sherif A, Smeenk RJ, Smits A, Stenzl A, Thalmann GN, Tombal B, Turkbey B, Vahr Lauridsen S, Valdagni R, Van Der Heijden AG, Van Poppel H, Vartolomei MD, Veskimäe E, Vilaseca A, Vives Rivera FA, Wiegel T, Wiklund P, Williams A, Zigeuner R, Witjes JA., Universidade do Minho, APH - Personalized Medicine, APH - Quality of Care, CCA - Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Urology, Radiotherapy, UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie, and Pathology

Subjects
0301 basic medicine, Delphi Technique, diagnosis, International Cooperation, Medicina Básica [Ciências Médicas], Delphi method, Medizin, CISPLATIN-INELIGIBLE PATIENTS, Medical Oncology, Delphi, 0302 clinical medicine, PROGNOSTIC-FACTORS, Multidisciplinary approach, Surveys and Questionnaires, consensu, follow-up, SINGLE-ARM, Medicine, Statistical analysis, Multi stakeholder, TRANSITIONAL-CELL CARCINOMA, Societies, Medical, computer.programming_language, treatment, Consensus conference, Hematology, 3. Good health, Europe, diagnosi, Oncology, Urological cancers Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 15], 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Ciências Médicas::Medicina Básica, Practice Guidelines as Topic, TUMOR RESPONSE, Special article, bladder cancer, RADICAL CYSTECTOMY, LYMPHOCYTE RATIO, medicine.medical_specialty, METASTATIC UROTHELIAL CARCINOMA, Urology, Urinary Bladder, education, Rare cancers Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences [Radboudumc 9], LONG-TERM-SURVIVAL, 03 medical and health sciences, SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being, Stakeholder Participation, Urological cancers Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences [Radboudumc 15], Journal Article, Humans, Oligometastatic disease, Neoplasm Staging, Science & Technology, Bladder cancer, business.industry, medicine.disease, 030104 developmental biology, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms, consensus, Family medicine, business, computer
Abstract

Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. 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 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, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements 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 statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach, The authors would like to thank Peter E. Clark from Atrium Health, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA, for his contribution to the Delphi survey. Angela Corstorphine of Kstorfin Medical Communications Ltd provided medical writing support with the preparation of this manuscript; this support was funded jointly by EAU and ESMO.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

20. Corrigendum to ‘EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer—An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees’ [European Urology 77 (2020) 223–250](S0302283819307638)(10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.035)

Author

Bogdan Geavlete, Stefano Fanti, Susanne Krege, Alberto Briganti, Harry W. Herr, Shaista Hafeez, Mark Frydenberg, Marek Babjuk, Willem de Blok, Antti Salminen, Maria De Santis, Yann Neuzillet, Arnulf Stenzl, Joost L. Boormans, Hein Van Poppel, Karel Decaestecker, Vibeke Løgager, Jorg R. Oddens, Silke Gillessen, Pedro C. Lara, Berardino De Bari, Baris Turkbey, Andrew K. Williams, Thomas Wiegel, Mihai Dorin Vartolomei, Robert Jones, Riccardo Valdagni, Vincent Khoo, Ashish M. Kamat, Christoph R. Müller, Georgios Gakis, Neeraj Agarwal, Annemarie Leliveld, Franklin A. Vives Rivera, Robert Jan Smeenk, Luís Pacheco-Figueiredo, H. Maxim Bruins, Juan Palou, Jorge Huguet, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Jonathan E. Rosenberg, Carl Salembier, Ken Herrmann, Iris Brummelhuis, Morgan Rouprêt, Helle Pappot, Susanne Osanto, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Anita Smits, Susanne Vahr Lauridsen, Manish I. Patel, Theo H. van der Kwast, Paul Sargos, Michel Bolla, Karin Plass, Jurgen J. Fütterer, Hugh Mostafid, Olivier Rouvière, Valérie Fonteyne, Erik Veskimäe, Bradley R. Pieters, Richard P. Meijer, Anne E. Kiltie, Tom J.H. Arends, Arndt Hartmann, Amir Sherif, Antoni Vilaseca, Stéphane Culine, Wim J.G. Oyen, Evanguelos Xylinas, Daniel Castellano, Shomik Sengupta, James N'Dow, Maria J. Ribal, Mesut Remzi, Richard Zigeuner, A. Müller, Richard Cathomas, Joaquim Bellmunt, Nicholas D. James, Paolo Gontero, Pieter De Visschere, Eva Compérat, Alison Birtle, Margitta Retz, Dickon Hayne, Michael Rink, Virginia Hernández, J. Alfred Witjes, Marco Moschini, J. Domínguez-Escrig, Yohann Loriot, Estefania Linares-Espinós, Peter C. Black, Alberto Bossi, Bertrand Tombal, Sylvain Ladoire, Aristotle Bamias, Ananya Choudhury, Simon J. Crabb, Steven MacLennan, Peter Wiklund, Antoine G. van der Heijden, Arturo Chiti, Bernhard Grubmüller, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa, Alan Horwich, George N. Thalmann, Bernard H. Bochner, Florian Roghmann, Max Bürger, Jan Oldenburg, Peter Hoskin, Andrea Necchi, Jonathan Richenberg, Anja Lorch, Peter Paul M. Willemse, Donna E. Hansel, M. Carmen Mir, Thomas Powles, Theo M. de Reijke, Ann Henry, Witjes, J. A., Babjuk, M., Bellmunt, J., Bruins, H. M., De Reijke, T. M., De Santis, M., Gillessen, S., James, N., Maclennan, S., Palou, J., Powles, T., Ribal, M. J., Shariat, S. F., Van Der Kwast, T., Xylinas, E., Agarwal, N., Arends, T., Bamias, A., Birtle, A., Black, P. C., Bochner, B. H., Bolla, M., Boormans, J. L., Bossi, A., Briganti, A., Brummelhuis, I., Burger, M., Castellano, D., Cathomas, R., Chiti, A., Choudhury, A., Comperat, E., Crabb, S., Culine, S., De Bari, B., De Blok, W., De Visschere, P. J. L., Decaestecker, K., Dimitropoulos, K., Dominguez-Escrig, J. L., Fanti, S., Fonteyne, V., Frydenberg, M., Futterer, J. J., Gakis, G., Geavlete, B., Gontero, P., Grubmuller, B., Hafeez, S., Hansel, D. E., Hartmann, A., Hayne, D., Henry, A. M., Hernandez, V., Herr, H., Herrmann, K., Hoskin, P., Huguet, J., Jereczek-Fossa, B. A., Jones, R., Kamat, A. M., Khoo, V., Kiltie, A. E., Krege, S., Ladoire, S., Lara, P. C., Leliveld, A., Linares-Espinos, E., Logager, V., Lorch, A., Loriot, Y., Meijer, R., Mir, M. C., Moschini, M., Mostafid, H., Muller, A. -C., Muller, C. R., N'Dow, J., Necchi, A., Neuzillet, Y., Oddens, J. R., Oldenburg, J., Osanto, S., Oyen, W. J. G., Pacheco-Figueiredo, L., Pappot, H., Patel, M. I., Pieters, B. R., Plass, K., Remzi, M., Retz, M., Richenberg, J., Rink, M., Roghmann, F., Rosenberg, J. E., Roupret, M., Rouviere, O., Salembier, C., Salminen, A., Sargos, P., Sengupta, S., Sherif, A., Smeenk, R. J., Smits, A., Stenzl, A., Thalmann, G. N., Tombal, B., Turkbey, B., Lauridsen, S. V., Valdagni, R., Van Der Heijden, A. G., Van Poppel, H., Vartolomei, M. D., Veskimae, E., Vilaseca, A., Rivera, F. A. V., Wiegel, T., Wiklund, P., Willemse, P. -P. M., Williams, A., Zigeuner, R., Horwich, A., Urology, APH - Personalized Medicine, APH - Quality of Care, CCA - Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Radiotherapy, UCL - SSS/IREC/CHEX - Pôle de chirgurgie expérimentale et transplantation, and UCL - (SLuc) Service d'urologie

Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty, Bladder cancer, business.industry, Urology, 030232 urology & nephrology, MEDLINE, Cancer, Regret, medicine.disease, 3. Good health, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Medicine, Urologia, University medical, Bufeta -- Càncer, Protocols clínics, business
Abstract

The authors regret that a co-author was mistakenly missed from the authorship. The following co-author should have been included in the authorship: Peter-Paul M. Willemse Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Published
2020

21. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies may improve diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspicion of prostate cancer.

Author

Winther MD, Balslev I, Boesen L, Logager V, Noergaard N, Thestrup KD, and Thomsen HS

Subjects
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Denmark, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Grading, Pilot Projects, Prostate-Specific Antigen blood, Ultrasonography, Image-Guided Biopsy, Prostate pathology, Prostatic Neoplasms diagnosis, Prostatic Neoplasms pathology
Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate whether a short prostate biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bp-MRI) protocol provides a valuable diagnostic addition for biopsy guidance in biopsy-naive men with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa)., Methods: A total of 62 biopsy-naive patients referred to a systematic transrectal ultrasound biopsy (TRUS-bx) due to suspicion of PCa were prospectively enrolled. Bp-MRI was performed before biopsy. All lesions were scored according to the modified Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2. All patients underwent TRUS-bx followed by bp-MRI-guided biopsies (bp-MRI-bx) under MRI/TRUS image fusion from any bp-MRI suspicious lesions not obviously targeted by TRUS-bx., Results: PCa was found in 42 (68%) and 32 (52%) patients by TRUS-bx and bp-MRI-bx, respectively. Bp-MRI-bx de-tected PCa in one patient who had been missed by TRUS-bx, and found the highest Gleason score (GS) in 13 (30%) patients leading to an overall GS upgrade in six (14%) patients. Bp-MRI missed nine patients with GS = 6 and two with a GS = 7 (3 + 4), all of whom were diagnosed by TRUS-bx., Conclusions: Addition of bp-MRI-bx to routine TRUS-bx seems feasible in biopsy-naive patients and may improve the detection of aggressive PCa in first-round biopsies. This pilot study thus provides an incentive for a larger investigation., Funding: Costs were covered by the Department of Radiology, Herlev Hospital, Denmark., Trial Registration: This study was registered with the Danish Data Protection Agency (HEH-2015-054, I-Suite no: 03775) and with the Committee for Health Research Ethics (no. H-15009341)., (Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.)

Published
2017

22. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Author

Thestrup KC, Logager V, Baslev I, Møller JM, Hansen RH, and Thomsen HS

Abstract

Background: Since multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) of the prostate exceeds 30 min, minimizing the evaluation time of significant (Gleason scores > 6) prostate cancer (PCa) would be beneficial. A reduced protocol might be sufficient for the diagnosis., Purpose: To study whether a short unenhanced biparametric MRI (bp-MRI) matches mp-MRI in detecting significant PCa., Material and Methods: A total of 204 men (median age, 65 years; mean ± SD, 64.1; range 45-75 years; median serum PSA level, 14 ng/mL; range, 2.2-120 ng/mL; median prostate volume, 60 mL; range, 23-263 mL) fulfilled the criteria for being enrolled. They underwent mp-MRI and prostate biopsy from January through June 2014. Of the included patients, 9.3% underwent prostatectomy, 90.7% had TRUS-bx, and 10.8 had MRI-targeted TRUS-bx. Two radiologists separately assessed the mp-MRI examination (T2-weighted [T2W] imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], apparent diffusion coefficient map [ADC-map] and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging [DCE]). Two months later, the bp-MRI version (T2W imaging, DWI, and ADC-map) was evaluated., Results: Reader 1: Assessing mp-MRI: 0 false negatives, sensitivity of 1, and specificity 0.04. Assessing bp-MRI: four false negatives, sensitivity of 0.94, and specificity 0.15. Reader 2: Assessing mp-MRI: five false negatives, sensitivity of 0.93, and specificity 0.16. Assessing bp-MRI: three false negatives, sensitivity of 0.96, and specificity 0.15. Intra-reader agreement Cohen's Kappa (κ) was 0.87 for reader 1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.92) and 0.84 for reader 2 (95% CI 0.78-0.89)., Conclusion: Bp-MRI is as good as mp-MRI at detecting PCa. A large prospective study seems to be strongly warranted.

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

23. Abdominovaginal fistula after incomplete removal of an intravaginal slingplasty.

Author

Elmelund M, Logager V, and Klarskov N

Subjects
Female, Fistula diagnosis, Foreign Bodies diagnosis, Foreign Bodies surgery, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Vaginal Fistula diagnosis, Abdomen, Device Removal adverse effects, Fistula etiology, Foreign Bodies complications, Suburethral Slings adverse effects, Vaginal Fistula etiology
Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

24. Early experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies under visual transrectal ultrasound guidance in patients suspicious for prostate cancer undergoing repeated biopsy.

Author

Boesen L, Noergaard N, Chabanova E, Logager V, Balslev I, Mikines K, and Thomsen HS

Subjects
Aged, Biopsy, Large-Core Needle, Cohort Studies, Humans, Image-Guided Biopsy, Kallikreins blood, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional methods, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Grading, Prospective Studies, Prostate diagnostic imaging, Prostate-Specific Antigen blood, Ultrasonography, Interventional methods, Adenocarcinoma diagnosis, Prostate pathology, Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia diagnosis, Prostatic Neoplasms diagnosis
Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies (mp-MRI-bx) in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy (TRUS-bx) sessions without previous experience of this., Material and Methods: Eighty-three patients with prior negative TRUS-bx scheduled for repeated biopsies due to persistent suspicion of PCa were prospectively enrolled. mp-MRI was performed before biopsy and all lesions were scored according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert classification. All underwent repeated TRUS-bx (10 cores) and mp-MRI-bx under visual TRUS guidance of any mp-MRI-suspicious lesion not targeted by systematic TRUS-bx., Results: PCa was found in 39 out of 83 patients (47%) and mp-MRI identified at least one lesion with some degree of suspicion in all 39 patients. Both PI-RADS and Likert scoring showed a high correlation between suspicion of malignancy and biopsy results (p < 0.0001). Five patients (13%) had cancer detected only on mp-MRI-bx outside the TRUS-bx areas (p = 0.025) and another seven patients (21%) had an overall Gleason score upgrade of at least one grade based on the mp-MRI-bx. Secondary PCa lesions not visible on mp-MRI were detected by TRUS-bx in six out of 39 PCa patients. The secondary foci were all Gleason 6 (3 + 3) in 5-10% of the biopsy core. According to the Epstein criteria, 37 out of 39 cancer patients were classified as clinically significant., Conclusion: Using mp-MRI, even without previous experience, can improve the detection rate of significant PCa at repeated biopsy and allows more accurate Gleason grading.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

25. Initial clinical experience with oral manganese (CMC-001) for liver MR imaging.

Author

Thomsen HS, Barentsz JO, Burcharth F, Chabanova E, Dekker HM, Moesgaard F, Moller JM, Leth-Espensen P, Logager V, and Takahashi S

Subjects
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Contrast Media administration & dosage, Liver Diseases diagnosis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Manganese administration & dosage
Abstract

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.

Published
2007
Full Text
View/download PDF

26. Imaging liver metastases with a new oral manganese-based contrast agent.

Author

Chabanova E, Logager V, Moller JM, Dekker H, Barentsz J, and Thomsen HS

Subjects
Administration, Oral, Colonic Neoplasms pathology, Female, Humans, Kidney Neoplasms pathology, Liver Neoplasms diagnostic imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms pathology, Chlorides, Contrast Media administration & dosage, Liver Neoplasms diagnosis, Liver Neoplasms secondary, Magnetic Resonance Imaging methods, Manganese administration & dosage, Manganese Compounds
Abstract

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.

Published
2006
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results