Background In view of the current upsurge of interest in, practice of, and research into, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) worldwide and locally, a survey was conducted to gauge the understanding, interest and knowledge of CAM amongst medical students in a local university. Methods A total of 555 first to fifth year medical students completed a questionnaire (54% response rate) designed to assess their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes to CAM in general and 16 common CAM therapies. Results Acupuncture was the best known therapy, with 57% claiming to know at least something about it. No students claimed they knew a lot about chiropractic, osteopathy, Ayuverdic medicine, homeopathy and naturopathy, and many had not ever heard of these therapies. Knowledge of commonly held beliefs about the 16 CAM modalities was generally poor, even for modalities which students claimed to know most about. A significant number of students had knowledge about CAM that was erroneous. Lack of scientific support was considered to be the main barrier to implementation of CAM. Attitudes to CAM were positive, with 92% believing that CAM includes ideas and methods from which conventional medicine can benefit, 86% wishing to know more about CAM and 91% stating that CAM would play an important role in their future medical practice. Conclusion As the public's use of various healing practices outside conventional medicine accelerates, ignorance about these practices by the country's future medical practitioners risks broadening the communication gap between the public and the profession that serves them. The majority of medical students recognise this risk and are keen to bridge this gap.

Urothelial carcinoma is the most common histologic subtype of bladder cancer, and accurate local staging of this tumor is crucial for management. Traditionally, local staging relied on biopsy. With increasing accuracy of imaging modalities and techniques, imaging also plays an important role in the multidisciplinary care of patients with this disease.

Quantitative T2-mapping using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows measurement of tissue T2-relaxation times to complement anatomical and spatial information derived from T2-weighted imaging. Studies have shown varying T2-relaxation times between prostate malignancy and non-malignant prostatic tissue. This paper aims to critically review the literature in a systematic review, to determine the usefulness of T2-mapping in the evaluation of prostate malignancy. A literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed. There were 17 studies, up to 31 June 2018, that measured T2-relaxation times of prostate cancer and non-malignant prostatic tissue. Data reviewed from each study included: number of patients and regions of interest evaluated; patient age; study design; T2-mapping technique utilized; reported T2-relaxation values; method of data analysis; method of “ground-truth” assessment; and reported limitations. The T2-relaxation times of prostate cancer and non-malignant prostatic tissue were compared. The T2-relaxation times in the transition zone (TZ) are generally lower than the peripheral zone (PZ). The T2-relaxation times in prostate malignancy are significantly lower than normal PZ in all the studies that performed a statistical comparison. In three out of four studies that performed a statistical comparison, there was no significant difference in the T2-relaxation times between prostate malignancy and non-malignant TZ. T2-mapping appears useful in identifying prostate malignancy in the peripheral zone but is unable to reliably distinguish prostate malignancy and non-malignant transition zone. Further studies are recommended to determine if T2-mapping can improve diagnostic accuracy when used in conjunction with multiparametric MRI for detection of prostate malignancy.

Focal hand lesions are commonly encountered in clinical practice and are often benign. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the imaging modality of choice in evaluating these lesions as it can accurately determine the nature of the lesion, enhancement pattern and exact location in relation to surrounding tissues. However, while MR features of various soft tissue lesions in the hand have been well described, it is often still difficult to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions. We review the MR imaging features of a variety of focal hand lesions presenting at our institution and propose a classification into “benign”, “intermediate grade” (histologically benign but locally aggressive with potential for recurrence) and frankly “malignant” lesions based on MR findings. This aims to narrow down differential diagnoses and helps in further management of the lesion, preoperative planning and, in cases of primary malignancy, local staging.Teaching Points• Hand lesions are often benign and MR is essential as part of the workup.• MR features of various hand lesions are well described but are often non-specific.• Certain MR features may help for the diagnosis but histological examination is usually required.• We aim to classify hand lesions based on MR features such as margin, enhancement and bony involvement.• Classifying these lesions can help narrow down differential diagnoses and aid management.

Advances in our understanding of the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of prostate cancer have enabled its integration into clinical routines in the past two decades. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) is an established imaging-based scoring system that scores the probability of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI to guide management. Image fusion technology allows one to combine the superior soft tissue contrast resolution of MRI, with real-time anatomical depiction using ultrasound or computed tomography. This allows the accurate mapping of prostate cancer for targeted biopsy and treatment. Machine learning provides vast opportunities for automated organ and lesion depiction that could increase the reproducibility of PI-RADS categorisation, and improve co-registration across imaging modalities to enhance diagnostic and treatment methods that can then be individualised based on clinical risk of malignancy. In this article, we provide a comprehensive and contemporary review of advancements, and share insights into new opportunities in this field.

Targeted prostate biopsies were found to be significantly superior to systematic biopsies for the detection of csPCa, while detecting less Gleason 6 cancer. Usage of PSAD and PHI cutoff levels in patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions may enable a number of patients to avoid unnecessary biopsy.

Background The primary objective was to quantify changes in vascular micro-environment in spinal metastases (SM) patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with multi-parametric dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The secondary objective was to study plasma biomarkers related to endothelial apoptosis. Patients and methods Patients were imaged with DCE-MRI at baseline/1-week/12-weeks post-SBRT. Metrics including normalised time-dependent leakage (Ktrans), permeability surface product (PS), fractional plasma volume (Vp), extracellular volume (Ve) and perfusion (F) were estimated using distributed parameter model. Serum acid sphingomyelinase (ASM) and sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) were quantified using ELISA. Clinical outcomes including physician-scored and patient-reported toxicity were collected. Results Twelve patients (with varying primary histology) were recruited, of whom 10 underwent SBRT. Nine patients (with 10 lesions) completed all 3 imaging assessment timepoints. One patient died due to pneumonia (unrelated) before follow-up scans were performed. Median SBRT dose was 27 Gy (range: 24–27) over 3 fractions (range: 2–3). Median follow-up for alive patients was 42-months (range: 22.3–54.3), with local control rate of 90% and one grade 2 or higher toxicity (vertebral compression fracture). In general, we found an overall trend of reduction at 12-weeks in all parameters (Ktrans/PS/Vp/Ve/F). Ktrans and PS showed a reduction as early as 1-week. Ve/Vp/F exhibited a slight rise 1-week post-SBRT before reducing below the baseline value. There were no significant changes, post-SBRT, in plasma biomarkers (ASM/S1P). Conclusions Tumour vascular micro-environment (measured by various metrics) showed a general trend towards downregulation post-SBRT. It is likely that vascular-mediated cell killing contributes to excellent local control rates seen with SBRT. Future studies should evaluate the effect of SBRT on primary-specific spinal metastases (e.g., renal cell carcinoma).

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing diagnostic performance and inter reader agreement between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Methods: A systematic review was performed, searching the major biomedical databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus), using the keywords “PIRADS 2.1” or “PI RADS 2.1” or “PI-RADS 2.1”. Studies reporting on head-to-head diagnostic comparison between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Summary receiver operator characteristic graphs were plotted. Analysis was performed for whole gland, and pre-planned subgroup analysis was performed by tumour location (whole gland vs transition zone (TZ)), high b-value DWI (b-value ≥1400 s/mm2), and reader experience (<5 years vs ≥5 years with prostate MRI interpretation). Inter-reader agreement and pooled rates of csPCa for PI-RADS 1–3 lesions were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool v. 2 (QUADAS-2). Results: Eight studies (1836 patients, 1921 lesions) were included. Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for whole gland (0.62 vs 0.66, p = 0.02). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.17, 0.31, 0.41). Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for TZ only (0.67 vs 0.72, p = 0.01). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.06, 0.36, 0.17). Amongst studies utilising diffusion-weighted imaging with highest b-value of ≥1400 s/mm2, pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.52, 0.4, 0.5, 0.47). There were no significant differences in pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 for less-experienced readers (p = 0.65, 0.37, 0.65, 0.81) and for more experienced readers (p = 0.57, 0.90, 0.91, 0.65). For PI-RADS v. 2.1 alone, there were no significant differences in pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV between less and more experienced readers (p = 0.38, 0.70, 1, 0.48). Inter-reader agreement was moderate to substantial for both PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. There were no significant differences between pooled csPCa rates between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 for PI-RADS 1–2 lesions (6.6% vs  7.3%, p = 0.53), or PI-RADS 3 lesions (24.1% vs  26.8%, p = 0.28). Conclusions: Diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS v. 2.1 is comparable to PI-RADS v. 2, however the significantly lower specificity of PI-RADS v. 2.1 may result in increased number of unnecessary biopsies. Advances in knowledge: 1. Compared to PI-RADS v. 2, PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a non-significantly higher sensitivity but a significantly lower specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. 2. PI-RADS v. 2.1 could potentially result in considerable increase in number of negative targeted biopsy rates for PI-RADS 3 lesions, which could have been potentially avoided.