The objective of this study was to highlight technical challenges and potential pitfalls of diagnostic imaging, intervention, and postintervention follow-up of vascular complications of pancreatitis. Diagnostic and interventional radiology imaging from patients with pancreatitis from 2002 to 2006 was reviewed. We conclude that biphasic CT is the diagnostic modality of choice. Catheter angiography may (still) be required to diagnose small pseudoaneurysms. Endovascular coiling is the treatment of choice for pseudoaneurysms. Close clinical follow-up is required, as patients may rebleed/develop aneurysms elsewhere.

The results of this study differ from previously published data by demonstrating substantial agreement between readers in multidetector-row CT assessment of the tumor, mesorectal fascia, and lymph nodes. With the exceptions of mesorectal fascia in the distal rectum and the distance from the nodes to mesorectal fascia, other evaluated parameters were assessed with moderate and substantial agreement between multidetector-row CT and MRI. However, our findings suggest that multidetector-row CT does not correlate well enough with MRI findings to replace it in rectal cancer staging.

BackgroundInvestigators often face challenges when recruiting participants into randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Some data suggest that telephone reminders may lead to greater participant enrollment.MethodsPatients aged 50 to 70 years from family practice rosters were initially mailed invitations to participate in an RCT of colorectal cancer screening. Patients who did not respond were randomly allocated to follow-up invitations by either telephone or mail four weeks after the initial invitation. The primary outcome was attendance for eligibility screening with the study nurse.ResultsAfter mailing invitations to 1,348 patients, 104 patients were initially enrolled in the RCT of colon cancer screening. Of 952 patients who did not respond to the initial mailed invitation, we randomly allocated 480 to follow-up invitation by telephone and 472 to follow-up invitation by mail. Attendance for eligibility screening with the study nurse was more frequent when non-responders were followed-up by telephone (84/480, 17.5%) than by mail (43/472, 9.1%) (relative risk (RR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.71, P < 0.001). Enrollment into the RCT was also greater among patients followed-up by telephone (59/480, 12.3%) compared to those followed-up by mail (35/472, 7.4%) (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.47, P=0.01).ConclusionsTelephone-based follow-up results in greater enrollment compared to a mail-based method. Our findings should be of interest to investigators conducting RCTs, particularly trials of screening interventions involving asymptomatic participants for which volunteer participation may be challenging.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00865527

BackgroundNo head-to-head randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the superiority of one colorectal screening modality over another in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), optical colonoscopy (OC), and virtual colonoscopy (VC), to inform the planning of a larger evaluative trial.MethodsEligible patients (aged 50 to 70) were recruited from five primary care practices in Hamilton, ON, Canada, between March 23, 2010 and August 11, 2010, and randomized 1:1:1 in a parallel design using an automated, centralized telephone service to either FOBT, OC, or VC. To reflect conventional practice, patients received no additional reminders to complete their allocated screening test beyond those received in usual practice. The primary outcome was completion of the assigned screening procedure. Results of the index test and any follow-up investigations were ascertained at 6 months. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to group assignment. The trial was stopped early due to lack of ongoing funding.ResultsA total of 198 participants were enrolled, of whom 67 were allocated to FOBT, 66 to OC, and 65 to VC. The allocated screening procedure was completed by 43 (64 %) subjects allocated to FOBT (95 % confidence interval [CI], 52–75 %), 53 (80 %) subjects allocated to OC (95 % CI, 69–88 %), and 50 (77 %) subjects allocated to VC (95 % CI, 65–85 %); because the trial stopped early, we had insufficient statistical power to detect clinically relevant differences in completion rates. During 6 months follow-up, colorectal adenomas were detected in 0 (0 %) subjects allocated to FOBT, 12 (18 %) subjects allocated to OC, and 2 (3 %) subjects allocated to VC. One subject in the OC arm had histological evidence of high-grade dysplasia. No subjects were diagnosed with colorectal cancer.ConclusionsIn this pilot randomized controlled trial of colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting, 64–80 % of subjects completed their allocated screening test. These findings may be of value to investigators planning clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00865527. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00865527

this new backronym indicates that the original acronym of PRES has become a misnomer.