Renal scintigraphy to predict persistent renal failure after acute kidney injury: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Renal scintigraphy (RS) is occasionally performed to assess the risk of persistent renal failure (PRF) in patients with acute kidney disease (AKD). However, its diagnostic performance has never been assessed. METHODS: We identified all patients with AKD for whom RS was performed in our institution between 2010 and 2017. PRF was defined as persistently low (< 33% of baseline) estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), 1 year after RS. Nuclear medicine specialists reviewed RS data and rated, for each patient, the likelihood of PRF ("PRF score"). We evaluated the performance to predict PRF (area under the ROC curve (AUC)) of RS-derived parameters such as renal accumulation index, accumulation slope, and new parameters derived from serial kidney activity counts. We tested the ability of those parameters to improve a clinical model including hypertension, diabetes, AKI severity and baseline eGFR. Finally, we conducted sensitivity analyses using alternate PRF definitions. RESULTS: Among 97 patients included, 57 (59%) fulfilled the criteria for PRF. The PRF score was able to predict PRF with an AUC of 0.63. Similarly, the accumulation index and accumulation slope respective AUCs were 0.64 and 0.63. None of these parameters were able to improve the performance of the clinical model. Among new parameters, the 3rd/2nd minute activity ratio and 3rd/2nd minute activity slope had fair diagnostic performance (AUC 0.72 and 0.74, respectively) and improved the performance of the clinical model. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Conventional renal scintigraphy can identify patients at high risk of PRF with a high specificity but a low sensitivity. New parameters, with comparable diagnostic abilities can be obtained within three minutes of injection.

Initial Staging of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer and Regional Lymph Nodes: Comparison of Diffusion-Weighted MRI With 18F-FDG-PET/CT.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) parameters with 18F-FDG PET/CT in primary locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS: From October 2012 to September 2014, 24 patients with histologically confirmed and untreated LARC (T3-T4) prospectively underwent a pelvic 1.5-T DW-MRI (b = 0 s/mm, b = 600 s/mm2) and a whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT, before neoadjuvant therapy. The 2 examinations were performed on the same day. Two readers measured 18F-FDG SUVmax and SUVmean of the rectal tumor and of the pathological regional lymph nodes on PET/CT and compared these with minimum and mean values of the ADC (ADCmin and ADCmean) on maps generated from DW-MRI. The diagnostic performance of ADC values in identifying pathological lymph nodes was also assessed. RESULTS: Regarding tumors (n = 24), we found a significant negative correlation between SUVmean and corresponding ADCmean values (ρ = -0.61, P = 0.0017) and between ADCmin and SUVmax (ρ = -0.66, P = 0.0005). Regarding the lymph nodes (n = 63), there was a significant negative correlation between ADCmean and SUVmean values (ρ = -0.38, P = 0.0021), but not between ADCmin and SUVmax values (ρ = -0.11, P = 0.41). Neither ADCmean nor ADCmin values helped distinguish pathological from benign lymph nodes (AUC of 0.24 [confidence interval, 0.10-0.38] and 0.41 [confidence interval, 0.22-0.60], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The correlations between ADCmean and SUVmean suggest an association between tumor cellularity and metabolic activity in untreated LARC and in regional lymph nodes. However, compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT, ADC values are not reliable for identifying pathological lymph nodes.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis in primary ovarian cancer staging: comparison between MDCT, MRI, and 18F-FDG PET/CT.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare multidetector CT (MDCT), MRI, and FDG PET/CT imaging for the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen women with ovarian cancer and suspected PC underwent MDCT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT, shortly before surgery. Nine abdominopelvic regions were defined according to the peritoneal cancer index. We applied lesion size scores on MDCT and MR and measured FDG PET/CT standard uptake. We blindly read MDCT, MR, and PET/CT before joint review and comparison with histopathology. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed. RESULTS: Ten women had PC (67%). Altogether, 135 abdominopelvic sites were compared. Multidetector CT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT had a sensitivity of 96%, 98%, and 95%, and specificity was 92%, 84%, and 96%, respectively. Corresponding receiver operating characteristics area was 0.94, 0.90, and 0.96, respectively, without any significant differences between them (P = 0.12). FDG PET/CT detected supradiaphragmatic disease in 3 women (20%) not seen by MDCT or MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Although MRI had the highest sensitivity and FDG PET/CT had the highest specificity, no significant differences were found between the 3 techniques. Thus, MDCT, as the fastest, most economical, and most widely available modality, is the examination of choice, if a stand-alone technique is required. If inconclusive, PET/CT or MRI may offer additional insights. Whole-body FDG PET/CT may be more accurate for supradiaphragmatic metastatic extension.