Search

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cause of cancer death among Canadian non-smokers. Each year about 21 500 Canadians are diagnosed with CRC. Ninety percent of cases occur in people aged 50 years or older. An estimated 4800 Canadian men and 4100 Canadian women die each year from the disease.1 About 75% of all new CRC cases arise in people with no known risk factors.2 Computed tomography colonography (CTC), a cross-sectional imaging examination that permits complete structural examination of the colon, shows promise as a tool for CRC screening. This article reviews the rationale for CRC screening, currently recommended Canadian and American screening guidelines and screening tools, and current evidence supporting CTC as a CRC screening tool and its advantages over conventional screening methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Level Of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:1029-1030. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colon cancer is the third most common malignancy in Canada. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) provides a creditable and validated option for colon screening and assessment of known pathology in patients for whom conventional colonoscopy is contraindicated or where patients self-select to use imaging as their primary modality for initial colonic assessment. This updated guideline aims to provide a toolkit for both experienced imagers (and technologists) and for those considering launching this examination in their practice. There is guidance for reporting, optimal exam preparation, tips for problem solving to attain high quality examinations in challenging scenarios as well as suggestions for ongoing maintenance of competence. We also provide insight into the role of artificial intelligence and the utility of CTC in tumour staging of colorectal cancer. The appendices provide more detailed guidance into bowel preparation and reporting templates as well as useful information on polyp stratification and management strategies. Reading this guideline should equip the reader with the knowledge base to perform colonography but also provide an unbiased overview of its role in colon screening compared with other screening options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A foreword to "Critical Care Nursing Quarterly" is presented.

BACKGROUND. Reported rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for LR-2 and LR-3 observations are generally greater than those expected on the basis of clinical experience, possibly reflecting some studies' requirement for pathologic reference. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine rates of progression to higher LI-RADS categories of LR-2 and LR-3 observations in patients at high risk of HCC. METHODS. This retrospective study included 91 patients (64 men, 27 women; mean age, 62 years) at high risk of HCC who had clinically reported LR-2 ( n = 55) or LR-3 ( n = 36) observations on MRI who also underwent follow-up CT or MRI at least 12 months after the observation was made. A study coordinator annotated the location of a single LR-2 or LR-3 observation per patient on the basis of the clinical reports. Using LI-RADS version 2018 criteria, two radiologists independently assigned LI-RADS categories on the follow-up examinations. Progression rates from LR-2 or LR-3 to higher categories were determined. A post hoc consensus review was performed of observations that progressed to LR-4 or LR-5. Subgroup analyses were performed with respect to presence of prior HCC ( n = 34) or a separate baseline LR-5 observation ( n = 12). RESULTS. For LR-2 observations, the rate of progression to LR-4 was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0-6.7%) and to LR-5 was 3.6% (95% CI, 0.4-13.1%) for both readers. For LR-3 observations, the rate of progression to LR-4 was 22.2% (95% CI, 9.6-43.8%) and to LR-5 was 11.1% (95% CI, 3.0-28.4%) for both readers. Fourteen observations progressed to LR-4 or LR-5 for both readers. Post hoc analysis revealed no instances of progression from LR-2 to LR-4; two, from LR-2 to LR-5; eight, from LR-3 to LR-4; and four, from LR-3 to LR-5. The progression rate from LR-3 to LR-5 was higher ( p < .001) among patients with (100.0%) than those without (3.0%) a separate baseline LR-5 observation for both readers. The progression rate from LR-2 to LR-5 was not associated with a separate baseline LR-5 observation for either reader ( p = .30). Progression rates were not different (p > .05) between patients with versus those without prior HCC. CONCLUSION. On the basis of progression to LR-4 or LR-5, LR-2 and LR-3 observations had lower progression rates than reported in studies incorporating pathology results in determining progression. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings refine understanding of the clinical significance of LR-2 and LR-3 observations.

MRI has an important role for radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning in prostate cancer (PCa) providing accurate visualization of the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) and locoregional anatomy, assessment of local staging and depiction of implanted devices. MRI enables the radiation oncologist to optimize RT planning by better defining target tumour volumes (thereby increasing local tumour control), as well as decreasing morbidity (by minimizing the dose to adjacent normal structures). Using MRI, radiation oncologists can define the DIL for delivery of boost doses of RT using a variety of techniques including: stereotactic body radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, proton RT or brachytherapy to improve tumour control. Radiologists require a familiarity with the different RT methods used to treat PCa, as well as an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the various MR pulse sequences available for RT planning in order to provide an optimal multidisciplinary RT treatment approach to PCa. Understanding the expected post-RT appearance of the prostate and typical characteristics of local tumour recurrence is also important because MRI is rapidly becoming an integral component for diagnosis, image-guided histological sampling and treatment planning in the setting of biochemical failure after RT or surgery.

Objective: We evaluated the feasibility of a prototype hybrid radiography/MRI system in evaluating infertility patients. Pelvic MRI was followed by hysterosalpingography (HSG) without moving the patient. This system allowed evaluation of tubal patency and cross-sectional imaging with one examination., Conclusion: Our hybrid radiography/MRI system provided good-quality HSG and MR images. We were able to assess tubal anatomy and patency and uterine anatomy and to detect pelvic abnormalities, including fibroids and adenomyosis. Furthermore, MR images and radiographs were superimposed to clarify HSG findings.