Agent detection imaging with Levovist increased diagnostic confidence in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions as compared with standard sonography.

BACKGROUND Hepatopancreatoduodenectomy (HPD) is the simultaneous combination of hepatic resection, pancreaticoduodenectomy, and resection of the entire extrahepatic biliary system. HPD is not a universally accepted due to high mortality and morbidity rates, as well as to controversial survival benefits. AIM To evaluate the current role of HPD for curative treatment of gallbladder cancer (GC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) invading both the hepatic hilum and the intrapancreatic common bile duct. METHODS A systematic literature search using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was performed to identify studies reporting on HPD, using the following keywords: ‘Hepatopancreaticoduodenectomy’, ‘hepatopancreatoduodenectomy’, ‘hepatopancreatectomy’, ‘pancreaticoduodenectomy’, ‘hepatectomy’, ‘hepatic resection’, ‘liver resection’, ‘Whipple procedure’, ‘bile duct cancer’, ‘gallbladder cancer’, and ‘cholangiocarcinoma’. RESULTS This updated systematic review, focusing on 13 papers published between 2015 and 2020, found that rates of morbidity for HPD have remained high, ranging between 37.0% and 97.4%, while liver failure and pancreatic fistula are the most serious complications. However, perioperative mortality for HPD has decreased compared to initial experiences, and varies between 0% and 26%, although in selected center it is well below 10%. Long term survival outcomes can be achieved in selected patients with R0 resection, although 5–year survival is better for ECC than GC. CONCLUSION The present review supports the role of HPD in patients with GC and ECC with horizontal spread involving the hepatic hilum and the intrapancreatic bile duct, provided that it is performed in centers with high experience in hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery. Extensive use of preoperative portal vein embolization, and preoperative biliary drainage in patients with obstructive jaundice, represent strategies for decreasing the occurrence and severity of postoperative complications. It is advisable to develop internationally-accepted protocols for patient selection, preoperative assessment, operative technique, and perioperative care, in order to better define which patients would benefit from HPD.

Abdominal emergencies in cancer patients encompass a wide spectrum of oncologic conditions caused directly by malignancies, paraneoplastic syndromes, reactions to the chemotherapy or often represent the first clinical manifestation of an unknown malignancy. Not rarely, clinical symptoms are the tip of an iceberg. In this scenario, the radiologist is asked to exclude the cause responsible for the patient’s symptoms, to suggest the best way to manage and to rule out the underlying malignancy. In this article, we discuss some of the most common abdominal oncological emergencies that may be encountered in an emergency department.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is considered a secondary examination compared to computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), due to the risk of misdiagnosing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The introduction of CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (CEUS LI-RADS) might overcome this limitation. Even though data from the literature seems promising, its reliability in real-life context has not been well-established yet. AIM To test the accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS for correctly diagnosing HCC and ICC in cirrhosis. METHODS CEUS LI-RADS class was retrospectively assigned to 511 nodules identified in 269 patients suffering from liver cirrhosis. The diagnostic standard for all nodules was either biopsy (102 nodules) or CT/MRI (409 nodules). Common diagnostic accuracy indexes such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed for the following associations: CEUS LR-5 and HCC; CEUS LR-4 and 5 merged class and HCC; CEUS LR-M and ICC; and CEUS LR-3 and malignancy. The frequency of malignant lesions in CEUS LR-3 subgroups with different CEUS patterns was also determined. Inter-rater agreement for CEUS LI-RADS class assignment and for major CEUS pattern identification was evaluated. RESULTS CEUS LR-5 predicted HCC with a 67.6% sensitivity, 97.7% specificity, and 99.3% PPV ( P < 0.001). The merging of LR-4 and 5 offered an improved 93.9% sensitivity in HCC diagnosis with a 94.3% specificity and 98.8% PPV ( P < 0.001). CEUS LR-M predicted ICC with a 91.3% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity, and 99.6% NPV ( P < 0.001). CEUS LR-3 predominantly included benign lesions (only 28.8% of malignancies). In this class, the hypo-hypo pattern showed a much higher rate of malignant lesions (73.3%) than the iso-iso pattern (2.6%). Inter-rater agreement between internal raters for CEUS-LR class assignment was almost perfect ( n = 511, k = 0.94, P < 0.001), while the agreement among raters from separate centres was substantial ( n = 50, k = 0.67, P < 0.001). Agreement was stronger for arterial phase hyperenhancement (internal k = 0.86, P < 2.7 × 10 -214 ; external k = 0.8, P < 0.001) than washout (internal k = 0.79, P < 1.6 × 10 -202 ; external k = 0.71, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION CEUS LI-RADS is effective but can be improved by merging LR-4 and 5 to diagnose...

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundDifferentiating neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) from its mimics is crucial to avoid misdiagnosis, especially in the absence of aquaporin‐4‐IgG. While multiple sclerosis (MS) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein‐IgG associated disease (MOGAD) represent major and well‐defined differential diagnoses, non‐demyelinating NMOSD mimics remain poorly characterized.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review on PubMed/MEDLINE to identify reports of patients with non‐demyelinating disorders that mimicked or were misdiagnosed as NMOSD. Three novel cases seen at the authors' institutions were also included. The characteristics of NMOSD mimics were analyzed and red flags associated with misdiagnosis identified.ResultsA total of 68 patients were included; 35 (52%) were female. Median age at symptoms onset was 44 (range, 1–78) years. Fifty‐six (82%) patients did not fulfil the 2015 NMOSD diagnostic criteria. The clinical syndromes misinterpreted for NMOSD were myelopathy (41%), myelopathy + optic neuropathy (41%), optic neuropathy (6%), or other (12%). Alternative etiologies included genetic/metabolic disorders, neoplasms, infections, vascular disorders, spondylosis, and other immune‐mediated disorders. Common red flags associated with misdiagnosis were lack of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pleocytosis (57%), lack of response to immunotherapy (55%), progressive disease course (54%), and lack of magnetic resonance imaging gadolinium enhancement (31%). Aquaporin‐4‐IgG positivity was detected in five patients by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (n = 2), cell‐based assay (n = 2: serum, 1; CSF, 1), and non‐specified assay (n = 1).ConclusionsThe spectrum of NMOSD mimics is broad. Misdiagnosis frequently results from incorrect application of diagnostic criteria, in patients with multiple identifiable red flags. False aquaporin‐4‐IgG positivity, generally from nonspecific testing assays, may rarely contribute to misdiagnosis.