Negative Predictive Value of Non-Echo-Planar Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging for the Detection of Residual Cholesteatoma Done at 9 Months After Primary Surgery Is not High Enough to Omit Second Look Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate non echo-planar diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (non-EP DW MRI) at 9 months after primary surgery to rule out residual cholesteatoma in patients scheduled before second-look-surgical exploration. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Secondary teaching hospital. PATIENTS/INTERVENTIONS: Patients who were scheduled for second-look-surgery after primary canal wall up repair of cholesteatoma underwent 1.5 T MRI including non-EP DWI and high-resolution coronal T1 and T2-FS SE sequences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Imaging studies were evaluated for the presence of cholesteatoma by three independent observers. Intraoperative observations were regarded the standard of reference. Ear, nose, throat (ENT) surgeons were blinded for imaging findings. The primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of MR imaging, secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent both MRI and surgery, among whom 22 had a cholesteatoma. Mean time between primary surgery and MRI was 259 days (standard deviation [SD] 108). NPV of non-EP DW MRI in detecting recurrent cholesteatoma was 53% (95% CI: 32-73%). Sensitivity and specificity were 59% (39-77%) and 91% (62-98%), respectively. The positive predictive value was 93% (69-99%). In five out of nine false-negative cases, recurrent cholesteatoma measured 3 mm or less. Using a 3 mm detection threshold, NPV increased to 79%. CONCLUSION: Non-EP DW MRI cannot replace second look surgery in ruling-out residual cholesteatoma at 9 months after primary surgery. It could be used in a follow-up strategy in low risk patients. Further research is needed which types of residual cholesteatoma are not revealed by MRI.

[Referral for mammography often not according to guideline]. / Verwijzing voor mammogram vaak niet volgens richtlijn.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer referred by general practitioners (GPs) for a screening mammography in accordance with the Dutch Breast Cancer Guideline produced by the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Centre (IKNL). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHOD: Women referred by their GP between December 2011 and December 2012 for mammography, with the indication "family history of breast cancer", were invited to take part in this study. A trained radiology laboratory assistant carried out a structured questionnaire to assess their risk on the basis of the categories of the 2008 IKNL guideline "Family history of breast/ovarian cancer". Based on the presence of certain risk factors, the women were allocated to one of the following groups: "referral for mammography", "referral to a clinical geneticist" or "no referral indicated". RESULTS: 242 women were referred by their GPs to the Radiology Department for mammography on the basis of family history; we included 210 women in our study. Their ages ranged from 25 to 77 years (mean age: 48 years). Forty-five patients (21%) were referred for mammography in accordance with the guideline. Twenty-two patients (10%) should have been referred to a clinical geneticist according to the guideline, whereas 143 patients (68%) did not meet the criteria for a screening mammography outside the screening programme. CONCLUSION: In only 21% of patients referred by their GPs for a screening mammography, with "family history" given as the reason, this referral was in accordance with the standard of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) or the IKNL guideline. Screening outside the breast cancer screening programme was not indicated according to the guideline for the majority of the women. Referral of 10% of the women referred should have been to a clinical geneticist; this figure rises to as many as 20% using the 2012 IKNL guideline.