Human-Level Differentiation of Medulloblastoma from Pilocytic Astrocytoma: A Real-World Multicenter Pilot Study.

Medulloblastoma and pilocytic astrocytoma are the two most common pediatric brain tumors with overlapping imaging features. In this proof-of-concept study, we investigated using a deep learning classifier trained on a multicenter data set to differentiate these tumor types. We developed a patch-based 3D-DenseNet classifier, utilizing automated tumor segmentation. Given the heterogeneity of imaging data (and available sequences), we used all individually available preoperative imaging sequences to make the model robust to varying input. We compared the classifier to diagnostic assessments by five readers with varying experience in pediatric brain tumors. Overall, we included 195 preoperative MRIs from children with medulloblastoma (n = 69) or pilocytic astrocytoma (n = 126) across six university hospitals. In the 64-patient test set, the DenseNet classifier achieved a high AUC of 0.986, correctly predicting 62/64 (97%) diagnoses. It misclassified one case of each tumor type. Human reader accuracy ranged from 100% (expert neuroradiologist) to 80% (resident). The classifier performed significantly better than relatively inexperienced readers (p < 0.05) and was on par with pediatric neuro-oncology experts. Our proof-of-concept study demonstrates a deep learning model based on automated tumor segmentation that can reliably preoperatively differentiate between medulloblastoma and pilocytic astrocytoma, even in heterogeneous data.

Brain stem tumors in children less than 3 months: Clinical and radiologic findings of a rare disease.

PURPOSE: Brain stem tumors in children < 3 months at diagnosis are extremely rare. Our aim is to study a retrospective cohort to improve the understanding of the disease course and guide patient management. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective analysis across the European Society for Pediatric Oncology SIOP-E HGG/DIPG Working Group linked centers, including patients with a brainstem tumor diagnosed between 2009 and 2020 and aged < 3 months at diagnosis. Clinical data were collected, and imaging characteristics were analyzed blindly and independently by two neuroradiologists. RESULTS: Five cases were identified. No patient received any therapy. The epicenter of two tumors was in the medulla oblongata alone and in the medulla oblongata and the pons in three. For patients with tumor in equal parts in the medulla oblongata and the pons (n = 3), the extension at diagnosis involved the spinal cord; for the two patients with the tumor epicenter in the medulla oblongata alone (n = 2), the extension at diagnosis included the pons (n = 2) and the spinal cord (n = 1). Biopsy was performed in one patient identifying a pilocytic astrocytoma. Two patients died. In one patient, autopsy revealed a high-grade glioma (case 3). Three survivors showed either spontaneous tumor regression (n = 2) or stable disease (n = 1). Survivors were followed up for 10, 7, and 0.6 years, respectively. One case had the typical imaging characteristics of a dorsal exophytic low-grade glioma. CONCLUSIONS: No patient fulfilled the radiologic criteria defining a high-grade glioma. Central neuroradiological review and biopsy may provide useful information regarding the patient management.

Structured Reporting in Multiple Sclerosis - Consensus-Based Reporting Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spinal Cord. / Strukturierte Befundung bei Multipler Sklerose ­ Konsensbasierte Befundvorlagen für die magnetresonanztomografische Untersuchung des Gehirns und des Rückenmarks.

As a result of technical developments and greater availability of imaging equipment, the number of neuroradiological examinations is steadily increasing [1]. Due to improved image quality and sensitivity, more details can be detected making reporting more complex and time-intensive. At the same time, reliable algorithms increasingly allow quantitative image analysis that should be integrated in reports in a standardized manner. Moreover, increasing digitalization is resulting in a decrease in the personal exchange between neuroradiologists and referring disciplines, thereby making communication more difficult. The introduction of structured reporting tailored to the specific disease and medical issue [2, 3] and corresponding to at least the second reporting level as defined by the German Radiological Society (https://www.befundung.drg.de/de-DE/2908/strukturierte-befundung/) is therefore desirable to ensure that the quality standards of neuroradiological reports continue to be met.The advantages of structured reporting include a reduced workload for neuroradiologists and an information gain for referring physicians. A complete and standardized list with relevant details for image reporting is provided to neuroradiologists in accordance with the current state of knowledge, thereby ensuring that important points are not forgotten [4]. A time savings and increase in efficiency during reporting were also seen [5]. Further advantages include report clarity and consistency and better comparability in follow-up examinations regardless of the neuroradiologist's particular reporting style. This results in better communication with the referring disciplines and makes clinical decision significantly easier [6, 7]. Although the advantages are significant, any potential disadvantages like the reduction of autonomy in reporting and inadequate coverage of all relevant details and any incidental findings not associated with the main pathology in complex cases or in rare diseases should be taken into consideration [4]. Therefore, studies examining the advantages of structured reporting, promoting the introduction of this system in the clinical routine, and increasing the acceptance among neuroradiologists are still needed.Numerous specific templates for structured reporting, e. g., regarding diseases in cardiology and oncology, are already available on the website www.befundung.drg.de . Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an idiopathic chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system and is the most common non-trauma-based inflammatory neurological disease in young adults. Therefore, it has significant individual and socioeconomic relevance [8]. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in the diagnosis, prognosis evaluation, and follow-up of this disease. MRI is established as the central diagnostic method in the diagnostic criteria. Therefore, specific changes are seen on MRI in almost all patients with a verified MS diagnosis [9]. Reporting of MRI datasets regarding the brain and spinal cord of patients with MS includes examination of the images with respect to the relevant medical issue in order to determine whether the McDonald criteria, which were revised in 2017 [10] and define dissemination in time and space clinically as well as with respect to MRI based on the recommendations of the MAGNIMS groups [11, 12], are fulfilled. A more precise definition of lesion types and locations according to the recommendations of an international expert group [13] is discussed in the supplementary material. Spinal cord signal abnormalities are seen in up to 92 % of MS patients [14-16] and are primarily located in the cervical spine [15]. The recommendations of the MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS working group published in 2021 [11] explicitly recommend the use of structured reporting for MS patients.Therefore, a reporting template for evaluating MRI examinations of the brain and spinal cord of patients with MS was created as part of the BMBF-funded DIFUTURE consortium in consensus with neuroradiological and neurological experts in concordance with the recommendations mentioned above [11] and was made available for broad use (https://github.com/DRGagit/ak_befundung). The goal is to facilitate efficient and comprehensive evaluation of patients with MS in the primary diagnostic workup and follow-up imaging. These reporting templates are consensus-based recommendations and do not make any claim to general validity or completeness. The information technology working group (@GIT) of the German Radiological Society and the German Society for Neuroradiology strive to keep the reporting templates presented here up-to-date with respect to new research data and recommendations of the MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS group [11]. KEY POINTS:: · consensus-based reporting templates. · template for the structured reporting of MRI examinations of patients with multiple sclerosis. · structured reporting might facilitate communication between neuroradiologists and referring disciplines. CITATION FORMAT: · Riederer I, Mühlau M, Wiestler B et al. Structured Reporting in Multiple Sclerosis - Consensus-Based Reporting Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spinal Cord. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2023; 195: 135 - 138.

REduction of THRomboembolic EVents during Ablation using the laserballoon: The RETHREVA registry.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebral events (CEs), including silent (SCEs), are a known complication of left atrial catheter ablation (LACA) in patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of this prospective registry was to gain more information about CEs during laserballoon LACA and to reduce the risk of their occurrence. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 74 patients (age 61 ± 11 years; 74% male; CHA2 DS2 -VASc 1.9 ± 1.4). Cerebral MRI (1.5 Tesla) was performed to detect CEs. ASPItest identified aspirin-resistant patients (ARPs). All bleeding complications were recorded. Due to an initial high CE rate, we evolved our clinical procedure step-by-step arriving at an optimized protocol: -Group 1: heparin after single transseptal puncture (TP), activated clotting time (ACT) > 300 seconds (CE: 64.3%). -Group 2: heparin after double TP, ACT > 300 seconds; 2a without (CE: 45.5%, RRR: -29.2%) and 2b with additional intravenous aspirin (CE: 36.4%, RRR: -43.4%; excluding ARP: 30%, RRR: -53.3%). -Group 3: heparin before double TP, ACT > 350 seconds; 3a without (CE: 54.5%, RRR: -15.2%) and 3b with aspirin (CE: 18.5%, RRR: -71.2%; excluding ARP: 8.7%, RRR: -86.5%). Larger LA diameter > 44 mm (OR: 1.149, P  =  0.005) and no aspirin use (OR: 4.308, P  =  0.008) were CE risk factors in multivariate logistic regression. In those patients receiving aspirin, aspirin resistance (OR: 22.4, P  =  0.011) was an exceptionally strong risk factor. CONCLUSION: These data support the use of intravenous aspirin including monitoring of aspirin resistance in addition to ACT-guided heparin. An optimized protocol of heparin before TP, double TP, and intravenous aspirin in non-ARP resulted in a significantly lowered CE incidence and severity.