In this paper we report the set-up and results of the Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS) organized in conjunction with the MICCAI 2012 and 2013 conferences. Twenty state-of-the-art tumor segmentation algorithms were applied to a set of 65 multi-contrast MR scans of low- and high-grade glioma patients—manually annotated by up to four raters—and to 65 comparable scans generated using tumor image simulation software. Quantitative evaluations revealed considerable disagreement between the human raters in segmenting various tumor sub-regions (Dice scores in the range 74%–85%), illustrating the difficulty of this task. We found that different algorithms worked best for different sub-regions (reaching performance comparable to human inter-rater variability), but that no single algorithm ranked in the top for all sub-regions simultaneously. Fusing several good algorithms using a hierarchical majority vote yielded segmentations that consistently ranked above all individual algorithms, indicating remaining opportunities for further methodological improvements. The BRATS image data and manual annotations continue to be publicly available through an online evaluation system as an ongoing benchmarking resource.

No abstract

BackgroundLow molecular weight heparins (LMWH’s) are used to prevent and treat thrombosis. Tests for monitoring LMWH’s include anti-factor Xa (anti-FXa), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and thrombin generation. Anti-FXa is the current gold standard despite LMWH’s varying affinities for FXa and thrombin.AimTo examine the effects of two different LMWH’s on the results of 4 different aPTT-tests, anti-FXa activity and thrombin generation and to assess the tests’ concordance.MethodEnoxaparin and tinzaparin were added ex-vivo in concentrations of 0.0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 anti-FXa international units (IU)/mL, to blood from 10 volunteers. aPTT was measured using two whole blood methods (Free oscillation rheometry (FOR) and Hemochron Jr (HCJ)) and an optical plasma method using two different reagents (ActinFSL and PTT-Automat). Anti-FXa activity was quantified using a chromogenic assay. Thrombin generation (Endogenous Thrombin Potential, ETP) was measured on a Ceveron Alpha instrument using the TGA RB and more tissue-factor rich TGA RC reagents.ResultsMethods’ mean aPTT at 1.0 IU/mL LMWH varied between 54s (SD 11) and 69s (SD 14) for enoxaparin and between 101s (SD 21) and 140s (SD 28) for tinzaparin. ActinFSL gave significantly shorter aPTT results. aPTT and anti-FXa generally correlated well. ETP as measured with the TGA RC reagent but not the TGA RB reagent showed an inverse exponential relationship to the concentration of LMWH. The HCJ-aPTT results had the weakest correlation to anti-FXa and thrombin generation (Rs0.62–0.87), whereas the other aPTT methods had similar correlation coefficients (Rs0.80–0.92).ConclusionsaPTT displays a linear dose-respone to LMWH. There is variation between aPTT assays. Tinzaparin increases aPTT and decreases thrombin generation more than enoxaparin at any given level of anti-FXa activity, casting doubt on anti-FXa’s present gold standard status. Thrombin generation with tissue factor-rich activator is a promising method for monitoring LMWH’s.

Abstract Background and aims: Central neuraxial blocks (CNB: epidural, spinal and their combinations) and other spinal pain procedures can cause serious harm to the spinal cord in patients on antihaemostatic drugs or who have other risk-factors for bleeding in the spinal canal. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a practise advisory on how to reduce risk of spinal cord injury from spinal haematoma (SH) during CNBs and other spinal pain procedures. Scandinavian guidelines from 2010 are part of the background for this practise advisory. Methods: We searched recent guidelines, PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS and EMBASE for new and relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT), case-reports and original articles concerning benefits of neuraxial blocks, risks of SH due to anti-haemostatic drugs, patient-related risk factors, especially renal impairment with delayed excretion of antihaemostatic drugs, and specific risk factors related to the neuraxial pain procedures. Results and recommendations: Epidural and spinal analgesic techniques, as well as their combination provide superior analgesia and reduce the risk of postoperative and obstetric morbidity and mortality. Spinal pain procedure can be highly effective for cancer patients, less so for chronic non-cancer patients. We did not identify any RCT with SH as outcome. We evaluated risks and recommend precautions for SH when patients are treated with antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or fibrinolytic drugs, when patients’ comorbidities may increase risks, and when procedure-specific risk factors are present. Inserting and withdrawing epidural catheters appear to have similar risks for initiating a SH. Invasive neuraxial pain procedures, e.g. spinal cord stimulation, have higher risks of bleeding than traditional neuraxial blocks. We recommend robust monitoring routines and treatment protocol to ensure early diagnosis and effective treatment of SH should this rare but potentially serious complication occur. Conclusions: When neuraxial analgesia is considered for a patient on anti-haemostatic medication, with patient-related, or procedure-related risk factors, the balance of benefits against risks of bleeding is decisive; when CNB are offered exclusively to patients who will have a reduction of postoperative morbidity and mortality, then a higher risk of bleeding may be accepted. Robust routines should ensure appropriate discontinuation of anti-haemostatic drugs and early detection and treatment of SH. Implications: There is an on-going development of drugs for prevention of thromboembolic events following surgery and childbirth. The present practise advisory provides up-to-date knowledge and experts’ experiences so that patients who will greatly benefit from neuraxial pain procedures and have increased risk of bleeding can safely benefit from these procedures. There are always individual factors for the clinician to evaluate and consider. Increasingly it is necessary for the anaesthesia and analgesia provider to collaborate with specialists in haemostasis. Surgeons and obstetricians must be equally well prepared to collaborate for the best outcome for their patients suffering from acute or chronic pain. Optimal pain management is a prerequisite for enhanced recovery after surgery, but there is a multitude of additional concerns, such as early mobilisation, early oral feeding and ileus prevention that surgeons and anaesthesia providers need to optimise for the best outcome and least risk of complications.

BackgroundMonitoring low molecular weight heparins (LMWH’s) in the perioperative period is prudent in patients at high risk of coagulative complications, especially when the patient has an epidural catheter requiring withdrawal, which is associated with the risk of spinal haematoma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro dose-responses of two different LMWH’s on two different viscoelastic haemostatic tests, using blood sampled from patients with normal routine coagulation parameters, on the day after major surgery when their epidural catheters were due to be withdrawn.MethodsEnoxaparin or tinzaparin were added in vitro to blood from ten patients who had undergone oesophageal resection, to obtain plasma concentrations of approximately 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 IU/mL. Coagulation was monitored using thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) using the InTEM® activating reagent; and free oscillation rheometry (FOR: ReoRox®), activated using thromboplastin. Clot initiation was measured using ROTEM-CT, ReoRox-COT1 and ReoRox–COT2. Clot propagation was measured using ROTEM-CFT, ROTEM-Alpha Angle and ReoRox-Slope. Clot stability was measured using ROTEM-MCF and ReoRox-G’max, and clot lysis was measured using ROTEM-ML and ReoRox-ClotSR.ResultsClot initiation time assessed by thromboelastometry and FOR was prolonged by increasing concentrations of both LMWH’s (P < 0.01). Equivalent doses of tinzaparin in international units (anti-FXa units) per millilitre prolonged clot initiation more than enoxaparin (P < 0.05). There was significant inter-individual variation – the ranges of CT and COT1 at LMWH-concentrations of 0 and 1.5 IU/mL overlapped. None of the tests reflecting clot formation rate or stability showed a dose–response to either LMWH but clot lysis showed a tentative negative dose–response to the LMWH’s.ConclusionsClot initiation time’s dose-dependent prolongation by LMWH’s in this study agrees with previous research, as does tinzaparin’s stronger anti-coagulative effect than enoxaparin at equivalent levels of anti-FXa activity. This casts doubt on the validity of using anti-FXa assays alone to guide dosage of LMWH’s. The significant inter-individual variation in dose–response suggests that the relationship between dose and effect in the postoperative period is complicated. While both ROTEM and FOR may have some role in postoperative monitoring, more research is needed before any conclusion can be made about their clinical usefulness.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-015-0145-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.