ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Biannual ultrasound (US) is recommended for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. However, US has limited sensitivity for early-stage HCC, particularly in overweight cohorts, where hepatic visualisation is often inadequate. Currently there are no robust imaging surveillance strategies in patients with inadequate US visualisation. We investigated the ability of non-contrast, abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (aMRI) to adequately visualise the liver for HCC surveillance in patients with previously inadequate US. METHODS: Patients undergoing US surveillance, where liver visualisation was inadequate (LI-RADS VIS-B and VIS-C), were prospectively recruited. Patients underwent non-contrast T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted aMRI. The images were reviewed and reported by an expert liver radiologist. Three independent, blinded radiologists assessed the aMRI visualisation quality using a binary score assessing five parameters (parenchymal definition, vascular definition, coverage of the liver, uniformity of liver appearance and signal-to-noise ratio). RESULTS: Thirty patients completed the aMRI protocol. The majority (90%) had underlying cirrhosis and were overweight (93.3%), with 50% obese and 20% severely obese. A total of 93.3% of the aMRI scans were of satisfactory quality. Six patients (20%) had hepatic abnormalities detected with aMRI that were not seen on their US: one HCC, one haemangioma and three clinically insignificant lesions. For the aMRI visualisation quality assessment, the coverage of the liver, vascular definition and parenchymal definition were consistently rated to be of sufficient quality by all three radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Non-contrast aMRI provided good visualisation of the liver and detection of abnormalities in patients with inadequate US. aMRI should be further explored in a larger, prospective study as an alternative surveillance strategy in patients with inadequate US.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Surveillance colonoscopy after polyp removal is recommended to prevent subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC). It is known that advanced adenomas have a substantially higher risk than non-advanced ones, but optimal intervals for surveillance remain unclear. DESIGN: We prospectively followed 156 699 participants who had undergone a colonoscopy from 2007 to 2017 in a large integrated healthcare system. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression we estimated the subsequent risk of CRC and high-risk polyps, respectively, according to index colonoscopy polyps, colonoscopy quality measures, patient characteristics and the use of surveillance colonoscopy. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, we documented 309 CRC and 3053 high-risk polyp cases. Compared with participants with no polyps at index colonoscopy, those with high-risk adenomas and high-risk serrated polyps had a consistently higher risk of CRC during follow-up, with the highest risk observed at 3 years after polypectomy (multivariable HR 5.44 (95% CI 3.56 to 8.29) and 8.35 (95% CI 4.20 to 16.59), respectively). Recurrence of high-risk polyps showed a similar risk distribution. The use of surveillance colonoscopy was associated with lower risk of CRC, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98) among patients with high-risk polyps and 0.57 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.92) among low-risk polyps. Among 1548 patients who had high-risk polyps at both index and surveillance colonoscopies, 65% had their index polyps in the proximal colon and 30% had index and interval polyps in the same segments. CONCLUSION: Patients with high-risk polyp findings were at higher risk of subsequent CRC and high-risk polyps and may benefit from early surveillance within 3 years. The subsite distribution of the index and recurrent high-risk polyps suggests the contribution of incomplete resection and missed lesions to the development of interval neoplasia.
ABSTRACT
We present the case of a male with end-stage diabetic nephropathy on haemodialysis who initially presented with acute-on-chronic digital ulceration. While awaiting vascular intervention, he became septic with abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Flexible sigmoidoscopy confirmed pseudomembranous colitis secondary to Clostridium difficile. Blood cultures grew Parabacteroides distasonis, a Gram-negative gut anaerobe. Enterobacter cloacae, another Gram-negative anaerobic gut bacilli, was grown in colonic cultures and swabs of the digital ulcers. We hypothesise that the pseudomembranous colitis increased gut translocation and thus led to the systemic spread of both gut anaerobes. This is the first reported case of Parabacteroides distasonis bacteraemia in the context of Clostridium difficile infection. Our patient recovered with antibiotics and went on to have vascular intervention for his digital ulceration.