Value of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating the pancreatic allograft transplant complications.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively investigate the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting complications following pancreas transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study and waived informed patient consent. We identified all allograft pancreas transplant patients at our institution from 2001 to January 2014 who had all pertinent post-transplant imaging and clinical data available. Transplant type was documented. Patients were divided into two groups according to post-transplant period (group A; <12 months, group B; ≥12 months). We evaluated the parenchymal enhancement using contrast-enhanced MRI of the allograft and determined the mean percentage of parenchymal enhancement (MPPE) overall and in various abnormalities, the vessel patency, any peripancreatic fluid collection, and the ductal anatomy. We correlated these with clinical results using t test, χ (2), and Fisher's exact test; p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: 51 patients (34 male, mean age 43.7 years) were identified, 28 (55%) of whom had abnormal imaging findings; transplant rejection-related necrosis (n = 7), fluid collections (n = 7), vascular stenosis (n = 4), isolated venous thromboses (n = 3), acute pancreatitis (n = 3), pancreatic and peripancreatic abscesses (n = 2), pseudoaneurysm (n = 1), and small-bowel obstruction (n = 1). Pre vs. post-contrast pancreatic MPPE at 1 min was 120% in the normal allografts and 115% in the allografts with pancreatitis and without necrosis (p > 0.05). MPPE at 1 min was only 9% in the allografts rejections with necrosis/infarction. More complications were found in group A than group B (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced MRI is useful for the non-invasive assessment of pancreas transplant complications.

Hemorrhagic Complications of Percutaneous Cryoablation for Renal Tumors: Results from a 7-year Prospective Study.

PURPOSE: Cryoablation of renal tumors is assumed to have a higher risk of hemorrhagic complications compared to other ablative modalities. Our purpose was to establish the exact risk and to identify hemorrhagic risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB approved, 7-year prospective study included 261 renal cryoablations. Procedures were under conscious sedation and CT guidance. Pre- and postablation CT was obtained, and hemorrhagic complications were CTCAE tabulated. Age, gender, tumor size, histology, and probes number were tested based on averages or proportions using their exact permutation distribution. "High-risk" subgroups (those exceeding the thresholds of all variables) were tested for each variable alone, and for all combinations of variable threshold values. We compared the subgroup with the best PPV using one variable, with the subgroup with the best PPV using all variables (McNemmar test). RESULTS: The hemorrhagic complication rate was 3.5 %. Four patients required transfusions, two required emergent angiograms, one required both a transfusion and angiogram, and two required bladder irrigation for outlet obstruction. Perirenal space hemorrhage was more clinically significant than elsewhere. Univariate risks were tumor size >2 cm, number of probes >2, and malignant histology (P = 0.005, 0.002, and 0.033, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that patients >55 years with malignant tumors >2 cm requiring 2 or more probes yielded the highest PPV (7.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: Although older patients (>55 years old) with larger (>2 cm), malignant tumors have an increased risk of hemorrhagic complications, the low PPV does not support the routine use of embolization. Percutaneous cryoablation has a 3.5 % risk of significant hemorrhage, similar to that reported for other types of renal ablative modalities.

Annual mammography screening: is it necessary?

Recent recommendations from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force suggest that screening mammography for women should be biennial starting at age 50 years and continue to age 74 years. With these recommendations in mind, we proposed a study to evaluate women at our institution in whom breast cancer is diagnosed within 1 year of a previously benign mammogram. A retrospective chart review was performed over a 4-year period. Only patients who had both diagnostic mammograms and previous mammograms performed at our institution and a pathologic diagnosis of breast cancer were included. Benign mammograms were defined as either Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System 1 or 2. Analysis of the time elapse between benign mammogram and subsequent mammogram indicative of the diagnosis of breast cancer was performed. A total of 205 patients were included. The average age was 64 years. From our results, 48 patients, 23 per cent of the total, had a documented benign mammogram at 12 months or less before a breast cancer diagnosis. One hundred forty-three (70%) patients had a benign mammogram at 18 months or less prior. This study raises concern that 2 years between screening mammograms may delay diagnosis and possible treatment options for many women.