Improved Detection of New MS Lesions during Follow-Up Using an Automated MR Coregistration-Fusion Method.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging is the key examination in the follow-up of patients with MS, by identification of new high-signal T2 brain lesions. However, identifying new lesions when scrolling through 2 follow-up MR images can be difficult and time-consuming. Our aim was to compare an automated coregistration-fusion reading approach with the standard approach by identifying new high-signal T2 brain lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis during follow-up MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective monocenter study included 94 patients (mean age, 38.9 years) treated for MS with dimethyl fumarate from January 2014 to August 2016. One senior neuroradiologist and 1 junior radiologist checked for new high-signal T2 brain lesions, independently analyzing blinded image datasets with automated coregistration-fusion or the standard scroll-through approach with a 3-week delay between the 2 readings. A consensus reading with a second senior neuroradiologist served as a criterion standard for analyses. A Poisson regression and logistic and γ regressions were used to compare the 2 methods. Intra- and interobserver agreement was assessed by the κ coefficient. RESULTS: There were significantly more new high-signal T2 lesions per patient detected with the coregistration-fusion method (7 versus 4, P < .001). The coregistration-fusion method detected significantly more patients with at least 1 new high-signal T2 lesion (59% versus 46%, P = .02) and was associated with significantly faster overall reading time (86 seconds faster, P < .001) and higher reader confidence (91% versus 40%, P < 1 × 10-4). Inter- and intraobserver agreement was excellent for counting new high-signal T2 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that an automated coregistration-fusion method was more sensitive for detecting new high-signal T2 lesions in patients with MS and reducing reading time. This method could help to improve follow-up care.

Laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with intermediate-risk endometrial cancer: Is it worth it?

OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study is to evaluate operative and postoperative morbidity of laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy as well as its potential impact on the postoperative management in patients with an intermediate-risk of endometrial cancer. METHODS: We did a retrospective study between January 2009 and December 2013. We included all patients operated by laparoscopy for endometrial cancer presumed to have an intermediate-risk of recurrence. Pelvic lymphadenectomy in this group of patients was performed at the discretion of operating surgeons. Patients were consequently divided into two groups according to whether or not pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed. We made a comparative analysis between these two groups. RESULTS: Overall, 116 patients were managed for endometrial cancer presumed to be intermediate-risk. Among these, 93 received treatment with laparoscopy and were included in the study. Patients' characteristics did not differ between the two groups. The mean duration of surgery was significantly longer when pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed. The average number of retrieved lymph nodes was 13 and we had seven patients with positive lymph nodes (10%). CONCLUSION: Pelvic lymphadenectomy allows a better postoperative classification for some patients without more complication.

[Is there any relation between couple violence and repeated medical abortion?] / Existe-t-il un lien entre les violences conjugales et les interruptions volontaires de grossesses répétées ?

OBJECTIVES: Risk factors of repeated induced abortion remain unclear. One of them could be domestic violence. The aim of this study was to explore the association between repeated induced abortion and domestic violence, including violence during childhood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted in three hospitals in Alsace. All women between 18 and 50 years old were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire during their hospitalization for induced abortion between 31th of November 2013 and 1st of December 2014. The questionnaire included questions about the current or past existence of domestic violence. They have also been questioned about the past existence of domestic violence between their parents and the fact that they had themselves been victims of violence and abuse during childhood. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty women answered to the questionnaire: 322 came for their first abortion while 158 were hospitalized for at least the second time for an induced abortion. The proportion of current or past violence was 53% in the "repeated induced abortions" group compared with 33% in the "first induced abortion" group (OR 2.1, CI 95% [1.4-3.1], P<0.01). Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for all types of domestic violence. CONCLUSION: In our sample of women, we found that experiencing domestic violence with current partner appeared to be a risk factor of repeated induced abortions.