Do we really need to thank the Beatles for the financing of the development of the computed tomography scanner?

It is commonly believed that the revenues from the selling of the Beatles' records by Electric and Musical Industries (EMI) allowed the company to develop the computed tomography (CT) scanner. Some went to define this as the Beatles' gift to medicine. However, significant controversies and discrepancies arise from analysis of this statement, making its correctness doubtful. The details of financing required for the CT development and the part of EMI in financial input have never been publicly announced. This work analyzes the financial contributions to the CT development and investigates if the revenues received from the sales of the Beatles' records were used for the creation of the CT scanner. Timeline of the development of the EMI CT scanner and the financial inputs of EMI and British Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) were assessed. Without salary expenses to Godfrey Hounsfield and his team, the development of the CT scanner cost EMI approximately £100,000. The British DHSS's expenses were £606,000. Hence, the financial contribution of DHSS into the development of the CT scanner was significantly bigger than that of EMI. Accordingly, British tax payers and officials of British DHSS are to be thanked for the CT scanner. The Beatles' input into the world's culture is valuable and does not require decoration by nonexistent connection to the development of CT. A positive aspect to this misconception is that it keeps in public memory the name of the company that developed the CT scanner.

Can CT replace MRI in preoperative assessment of the circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer?

UNLABELLED: The surgical circumferential resection margin in total mesorectal excision surgery is defined by the relationship of the tumor to the mesorectal fascia. Patients with anticipated tumor invasion of the mesorectal fascia receive neoadjuvant therapy to downstage/downsize the tumor and to obtain tumor-free resection margins.Tumor relationship to the mesorectal fascia is accurately determined by MRI. Compared with MRI, multidetector-row computed tomography is more widely available, faster, less costly, and provides the ability to simultaneously assess the liver, peritoneum, and retroperitoneum for metastases. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of multidetector-row CT with conventional MRI in diagnosis of rectal cancer invasion of the mesorectal fascial envelope. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 2-year period, all patients were enrolled in this study who had biopsy-proven rectal carcinoma and were referred, as a part of the routine preoperative staging workup, for a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis and also an MRI of the pelvis.All examinations were reviewed independently by 2 radiologists who were blinded from one another, from the findings of the other modality, and from clinical information. Both observers were dedicated abdominal radiologists who are experienced in reading pelvic CT and MRI. Categorical agreement between MRI and multidetector-row CT for all the evaluated parameters of the tumor position, mesorectal fascia, and lymph nodes, as well as the interobserver agreement between CT and MRI, was determined by the intraclass correlation weighted kappa statistic to measure the data set's consistency. RESULTS: Among the study's 92 patients, the tumor characteristics suggested by multidetector-row CT agreed with those of MRI, with a weighted kappa ranging from 0.488 to 0.748 for the first reader and 0.577 to 0.800 for the second reader. Interobserver agreement ranged from 0.506 to 0.746.Agreement regarding mesorectal fascia characteristics differed significantly between multidetector-row CT and MRI, depending on the level of assessment. In the distal rectum, agreement was 0.207 for the first reader and 0.385 for the second reader. In the mid rectum, agreement was 0.420 and 0.527, respectively, and in the proximal rectum agreement was 0.508 and 0.520. Interobserver agreement was 0.737 at the distal level and 0.700 at the mid and proximal levels. Agreement regarding measurement of the distance from the tumor to the mesorectal fascia was 0.425 for the first reader and 0.723 for the second reader, with interobserver agreement of 0.766. Agreement in assessment of the number of lymph nodes ranged from 0.743 to 0.787 for the first reader and 0.754 to 0.840 for the second reader. Interobserver agreement ranged from 0.779 to 0.841. Agreement in assessment of the size of the lymph nodes ranged from 0.540 to 0.830 for the first reader and 0.850 to 0.940 for the second reader. Interobserver agreement ranged from 0.900 to 0.920. Agreement in assessment of the distance from nodes to the mesorectal fascia was 0.320 for the first reader and 0.401 for the second reader, with interobserver agreement of 0.950. CONCLUSION: The results of this study differ from previously published data by demonstrating substantial agreement between readers in multidetector-row CT assessment of the tumor, mesorectal fascia, and lymph nodes. With the exceptions of mesorectal fascia in the distal rectum and the distance from the nodes to mesorectal fascia, other evaluated parameters were assessed with moderate and substantial agreement between multidetector-row CT and MRI. However, our findings suggest that multidetector-row CT does not correlate well enough with MRI findings to replace it in rectal cancer staging.

Economic and ethical impact of extrarenal findings on potential living kidney donor assessment with computed tomography angiography.

To determine the prevalence and spectrum of extrarenal findings in a screening population of potential living kidney donors undergoing renal Computed tomography angiography (CTA) and evaluate their impact on subsequent patient management and imaging costs. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed 175 consecutive renal CTA's performed for assessment of potential living kidney donors. Extrarenal radiological findings were recorded and classified according to high, medium, or low importance based on clinical relevance and the need for further investigations and/or treatment. The cost of additional imaging examinations was calculated using 2002 Canadian (British Columbia) reimbursements. There were 73 extrarenal findings in 71/175 (40.6%) of the potential kidney donors in the study population. Findings were categorized as of high clinical importance in 18 (10.3%) cases, including lung lesions, bowel tumors, and liver tumors and as medium importance in 31 (17.7%). Twenty-two (12.6%) individuals had findings categorized as low importance, probably of no clinical significance and requiring no follow-up. Further potential evaluation of the 49 patients (28%) with highly and moderately significant extrarenal findings may require an additional $6137 (mean $35.1 per each case of all the screened patients). Transplantation of a kidney from a living donor is an excellent alternative to cadaveric allografts. Potential living kidney donors are a highly selected population of healthy individuals, screened for significant past or current medical conditions before undergoing CTA. Despite this screening, potentially significant extrarenal findings (classified as high or medium importance) were revealed in 28% of patients. These patients may require further investigations and/or treatment. The referring physician and patient should be aware of such potentially high probability, which may require further nontransplant related evaluation and treatment. This has medical, legal, economic, and ethical implications.