Prospective diagnostic test accuracy comparison of computed tomography during arterial portography and Primovist magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative assessment of colorectal cancer liver metastases.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the accuracy and inter-observer agreement for the detection of liver lesions using Primovist magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) and computed tomography during arterial portography (CTAP). METHODS: Patients evaluated at St George Hospital Liver Unit for colorectal liver metastases (CRCLM) underwent CTAP as part of standard staging. pMRI was added to the pre-operative assessment. Two radiologists reported CTAP and two reported pMRI. The sensitivity and specificity of CTAP and pMRI were calculated using histopathology as the gold standard. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 62 patients corresponding to 219 lesions confirmed on histopathology. Agreement on the detection of lesions between the two radiologists that reported pMRI was higher than for CTAP (Kappa = 0.80 versus 0.74). Specificity of lesion detection for pMRI was 0.88 and 0.83 for CTAP (P = 0.112). Sensitivity for pMRI was 0.83 and 0.81 for CTAP. For patients who had chemotherapy before evaluation, pMRI had a significantly higher specificity than CTAP (0.79 versus 0.63, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: pMRI is less invasive, has a good inter-observer agreement, has comparable sensitivity and specificity to CTAP in the pre-chemotherapy population and demonstrates better specificity in patients assessed post-chemotherapy. pMRI is a valid alternative to CTAP in the assessment of CRCLM.

Systematic review of neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) offers the only hope for cure. However, in patients undergoing resection, recurrences, in particular, intrahepatic recurrence are common. The effectiveness of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as a neoadjuvant therapy for unresectable HCC was exploited by numerous liver units and employed preoperatively in the setting of resectable HCC with an aim to prevent recurrence and prolong survival. A systematic literature search of databases (Medline and PubMed) to identify published studies of TACE administered preoperatively as a neoadjuvant treatment for resectable HCC was undertaken. A systematic review by tabulation of the results was performed with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary endpoint. Overall survival (OS), rate of pathological response, impact on surgical morbidity and mortality and pattern of recurrences were secondary endpoints of this review. Eighteen studies; three randomized trials and 15 observational studies were evaluated. This comprised of 3927 patients, of which, 1293 underwent neoadjuvant TACE. The median DFS in the TACE and non-TACE group ranged from 10 to 46 and 8 to 52 months, respectively, with 67% of studies reporting similar DFS between groups despite higher extent of tumour necrosis from the resected specimens indicating a higher rate of pathological response (partial TACE 27-72% vs. non-TACE 23-52%; complete TACE 0-28% vs. non-TACE zero), with no difference in surgical morbidity and mortality outcome. No conclusion could be drawn with respect to OS. Both randomized and non-randomized trials suggest the use of TACE preoperatively as a neoadjuvant treatment in resectable HCC is a safe and efficacious procedure with high rates of pathological responses. However, it does not appear to improve DFS.

Cranial CT interpretation by senior emergency department staff.

The aims of the present study were to determine the rate of misinterpretation of non-contrast cranial CT scans by emergency specialists and trainees compared with specialist radiologists, and the proportion of misinterpretations that is consequential. A 12-month prospective blinded cohort study was performed. One-hundred and ninety of 1,282 scans (14.8%) were misinterpreted, and 78 of these (41.1%) were of potential or actual consequence. We conclude that the performance of senior emergency department staff in non-contrast cranial CT interpretation is no better than moderately good, and a large proportion of misinterpretations are of potential or actual clinical consequence.