Bleeding Risk and Management in Interventional Procedures in Chronic Liver Disease.

The coagulopathy of liver disease is distinctly different from therapeutic anticoagulation in a patient. Despite stable elevated standard clot-based coagulation assays, nearly all patients with stable chronic liver disease (CLD) have normal or increased clotting. Common unfamiliarity with the limitations of these assays in CLD may lead to inappropriate and sometimes harmful interventions, including blood product transfusions before a procedure. Knowledge of the distinct hemostatic alterations in CLD can allow identification of the small subset of patients with clinically significant coagulopathy who can benefit from hematologic optimization before invasive procedures.

Noninvasive vascular imaging in abdominal solid organ transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we focus on the vascular complications related to liver, pancreas, and kidney transplantation. CONCLUSION: Long term allograft survival of solid organ transplantation depends on early intervention of complications. Noninvasive imaging with ultrasound, CT, and MRI allows accurate diagnosis of complications and aids in treatment planning.

Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the prevalence and predictive value of three-dimensional (3D) and dynamic breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and contrast material kinetic features alone and as part of predictive diagnostic models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committees of all participating institutions, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Although study data collection was performed before HIPAA went into effect, standards that would be compliant with HIPAA were adhered to. Data from the International Breast MR Consortium trial 6883 were used in the analysis. Women underwent 3D (minimum spatial resolution, 0.7 x 1.4 x 3 mm; minimal temporal resolution, 4 minutes) and dynamic two-dimensional (temporal resolution, 15 seconds) MR imaging examinations. Readers rated enhancement shape, enhancement distribution, border architecture, enhancement intensity, presence of rim enhancement or internal septations, and the shape of the contrast material kinetic curve. Regression was performed for each feature individually and after adjustment for associated mammographic findings. Multivariate models were also constructed from multiple architectural and dynamic features. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az values) were estimated for all models. RESULTS: There were 995 lesions in 854 women (mean age, 53 years +/- 12 [standard deviation]; range, 18-80 years) for whom pathology data were available. The absence of enhancement was associated with an 88% negative predictive value for cancer. Qualitative characterization of the dynamic enhancement pattern was associated with an Az value of 0.66 across all lesion architectures. Focal mass margins (Az = 0.76) and signal intensity (Az = 0.70) were highly predictive imaging features. Multivariate models were constructed with an Az value of 0.880. CONCLUSION: Architectural and dynamic features are important in breast MR imaging interpretation. Multivariate models involving feature assessment have a diagnostic accuracy superior to that of qualitative characterization of the dynamic enhancement pattern.

MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883.

BACKGROUND: Prior single institution studies suggest MRI may improve the assessment of the extent of cancer within the breast, and thus reduce the risk of leaving macroscopic disease in the breast following breast conservation therapy. We report on the rate of MRI and mammography detection of foci of distinct incidental cancer in a prospective, multi center trial involving 426 women with confirmed breast cancer at 15 institutions in the US, Canada, and Germany. METHODS: Women underwent mammography and MRI prior to biopsy of the suspicious index lesion. Additional incidental lesions (IL) greater than 2 cm from the index lesion that were detected by mammography and MRI were noted and characterized. Biopsy recommendations were associated with ILs given an assessment of suspicious or highly suspicous (BiRads 4 and 5). These assessments were considered a positive test. RESULTS: MRI had a significantly higher yield of confirmed cancer ILs than mammography (0.18 (95%CI: 0.142-0.214) for MRI versus 0.072 (95%CI: 0.050-0.100) for mammography). The cancer ILs detected by MRI alone appeared to be similar to those detected by mammography with respect to size and histology. The percentage of biopsies of ILs that resulted in a cancer diagnosis was similar between the modalities (MRI 0.72(95%CI: 0.6-0.81); Mammography 0.85 (95%CI: 0.62-0.96)). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that consideration needs to be given regarding the integration of breast MRI into the pretreatment evaluation of women seeking breast conservation therapy.

Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the performance of screening mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women at genetically high risk for breast cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted an international prospective study of screening mammography and MRI in asymptomatic, genetically high-risk women age >/= 25 years. Women with a history of breast cancer were eligible for a contralateral screening if they had been diagnosed within 5 years or a bilateral screening if they had been diagnosed > 5 years previously. All examinations (MRI, mammography, and clinical breast examination [CBE]) were performed within 90 days of each other. RESULTS: In total, 390 eligible women were enrolled by 13 sites, and 367 women completed all study examinations. Imaging evaluations recommended 38 biopsies, and 27 biopsies were performed, resulting in 4 cancers diagnosed for an overall 1.1% cancer yield (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.3-2.8%). MRI detected all four cancers, whereas mammography detected one cancer. The diagnostic yield of mammography was 0.3% (95%CI, 0.01-1.5%). The yield of cancer by MRI alone was 0.8% (95%CI, - 0.3-2.0%). The biopsy recommendation rates for MRI and mammography were 8.5% (95%CI, 5.8-11.8%) and 2.2% (95%CI, 0.1-4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening MRI in high-risk women was capable of detecting mammographically and clinically occult breast cancer. Screening MRI resulted in 22 of 367 of women (6%) who had negative mammogram and negative CBE examinations undergoing biopsy, resulting in 3 additional cancers detected. MRI also resulted in 19 (5%) false-positive outcomes, which resulted in benign biopsies.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy.

CONTEXT: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to have high sensitivity for cancer detection and is increasingly used following mammography to evaluate suspicious breast lesions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of breast MRI in conjunction with mammography for the detection of breast cancer in patients with suspicious mammographic or clinical findings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective multicenter investigation of the International Breast MR Consortium conducted at 14 university hospitals in North America and Europe from June 2, 1998, through October 31, 2001, of 821 patients referred for breast biopsy for American College of Radiology category 4 or 5 mammographic assessment or suspicious clinical or ultrasound finding. INTERVENTIONS: MRI examinations performed prior to breast biopsy; MRI results were interpreted at each site, which were blinded to pathological results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of breast MRI. RESULTS: Among the 821 patients, there were 404 malignant index lesions, of which 63 were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 341 were invasive carcinoma. Of the 417 nonmalignant index lesions, 366 were benign, 47 showed atypical histology, and 4 were lobular carcinoma in situ. The AUC pooled over all institutions was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.91). MRI correctly detected cancer in 356 of 404 cancer cases (DCIS or invasive cancer), resulting in a sensitivity of 88.1% (95% CI, 84.6%-91.1%), and correctly identified as negative for cancer 281 of 417 cases without cancer, resulting in a specificity of 67.7% (95% CI, 62.7%-71.9%). MRI performance was not significantly affected by mammographic breast density, tumor histology, or menopausal status. The positive predictive values for 356 of 492 patients was 72.4% (95% CI, 68.2%-76.3%) and of mammography for 367 of 695 patients was 52.8% (95% CI, 49.0%-56.6%) (P<.005). Dynamic MRI did not improve the AUC compared with 3-dimensional MRI alone, but the specificity of a washout pattern for 123 of 136 patients without cancer was 90.4% (95% CI, 84%-95%). CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI has high sensitivity but only moderate specificity independent of breast density, tumor type, and menopausal status. Although the positive predictive value of MRI is greater than mammography, MRI does not obviate the need for subsequent tissue sampling in this setting.