No abstract

No abstract

Transrectal ultrasonography (US)-guided biopsy is the standard approach for histopathologic diagnosis of prostate cancer. However, this technique has multiple limitations owing to the operator's inability in most cases to directly visualize and target prostate lesions. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate overcomes many of these limitations by directly depicting areas of abnormality and allowing targeted biopsies. Accuracy in the detection of prostate cancer is improved by the combined use of standard T2-weighted MR imaging and advanced MR imaging techniques such as diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, and MR spectroscopy. Suspicious-appearing regions of the prostate seen on MR images can be targeted at real-time transrectal US-guided biopsy to improve the diagnostic yield. MR imaging also can be performed for real-time guidance of transrectal prostate biopsy. Studies among patients who underwent at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative result before undergoing an MR imaging-guided biopsy showed improved detection rates with MR imaging-guided biopsy in comparison with the detection rates achieved with a repeat transrectal US-guided biopsy; however, MR imaging-guided biopsy is a more time-consuming procedure. A technique known as fused MR imaging- and transrectal US-guided biopsy, which relies on the coregistration of previously acquired MR images with real-time transrectal US images acquired during the procedure, shows promise but is limited by deformation of the prostate; this limitation is the subject of ongoing investigation. Another technique that is currently under investigation, MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with robotic assistance, may one day help improve the accuracy of biopsy needle placement.

To assess arteriovenous differences in acid-base status, we measured the pH and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) in blood drawn simultaneously from the arterial and central venous circulations in 26 patients with normal cardiac output, 36 patients with moderate and 5 patients with severe circulatory failure, and 38 patients with cardiac or cardiorespiratory arrest. The patients with normal cardiac output had the expected arteriovenous differences: venous pH was lower by 0.03 unit, and venous PCO2 was higher by 0.8 kPa (5.7 mm Hg). These differences widened only slightly in those with moderate cardiac failure. Additional simultaneous determinations in mixed venous blood from pulmonary arterial catheters were nearly identical to those in central venous blood. In the five hypotensive patients with severe circulatory failure there were substantial differences between the mean arterial and central venous pH (7.31 vs. 7.21) and PCO2 (5.8 vs. 9.0 kPa [44 vs. 68 mm Hg]). Large arteriovenous differences were present during cardiac arrest in patients whose ventilation was mechanically sustained, whether sodium bicarbonate had been administered (pH, 7.27 vs. 7.07; PCO2, 5.8 vs. 8.6 kPa [44 vs. 65 mm Hg]) or not (pH, 7.36 vs. 7.01; PCO2, 3.7 vs. 10.2 kPa [28 vs. 76 mm Hg]). By contrast, in patients with cardiorespiratory arrest, large arteriovenous differences were noted only when sodium bicarbonate had been given (pH, 7.24 vs. 7.01; PCO2, 9.5 vs. 16.9 kPa [71 vs. 127 mm Hg]). We conclude that both arterial and central venous blood samples are needed to assess acid-base status in patients with critical hemodynamic compromise. Although information about arterial blood gases is needed to assess pulmonary gas exchange, in the presence of severe hypoperfusion, the hypercapnia and acidemia at the level of the tissues are detected better in central venous blood.

The Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver imaging with the overarching goal of improving communication, clinical care, education, and research relating to patients at risk for or diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In 2018, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) integrated LI-RADS into its clinical practice guidance for the imaging-based diagnosis of HCC. The harmonization between the AASLD and LI-RADS diagnostic imaging criteria required minor modifications to the recently released LI-RADS v2017 guidelines, necessitating a LI-RADS v2018 update. This article provides an overview of the key changes included in LI-RADS v2018 as well as a look at the LI-RADS v2018 diagnostic algorithm and criteria, technical recommendations, and management suggestions. Substantive changes in LI-RADS v2018 are the removal of the requirement for visibility on antecedent surveillance ultrasound for LI-RADS 5 (LR-5) categorization of 10-19 mm observations with nonrim arterial phase hyper-enhancement and nonperipheral "washout", and adoption of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network definition of threshold growth (≥ 50% size increase of a mass in ≤ 6 months). Nomenclatural changes in LI-RADS v2018 are the removal of -us and -g as LR-5 qualifiers.

MR enterography is playing an evolving role in the evaluation of small bowel Crohn's disease (CD). Standard MR enterography includes a combination of rapidly acquired T2 sequence, balanced steady-state acquisition, and contrast enhanced T1-weighted gradient echo sequence. The diagnostic performance of these sequences has been shown to be comparable, and in some respects superior, to other small bowel imaging modalities. The findings of CD on MR enterography have been well described in the literature. New and emerging techniques such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), cinematography, and magnetization transfer, may lead to improved accuracy in characterizing the disease. These advanced techniques can provide quantitative parameters that may prove to be useful in assessing disease activity, severity, and response to treatment. In the future, MR enterography may play an increasing role in management decisions for patients with small bowel CD; however, larger studies are needed to validate these emerging MRI parameters as imaging biomarkers.

No abstract

The following is an illustrative review of common pitfalls in liver MRI that may challenge interpretation. This article reviews common technical and diagnostic challenges encountered when interpreting dynamic multiphasic T1‐weighted imaging, hepatobiliary phase imaging, and diffusion‐weighted imaging of the liver. Additionally, each section includes suggestions for avoiding diagnostic and technical errors. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:41–58.