Neuroimaging lesion assessment by pseudo-subtraction of overlaid semi-transparent volumes: A technical description and feasibility series.

Assessing and reporting clinical images constitutes the mainstay of clinical neuroradiology. Continually increasing numbers of neuroradiology referrals and follow-up examinations call for reproducible, accurate, and rapid workflows. Readily available and easy to use, advanced workstation tools such as co-registration of volume series can be used to overlay volume series from two different time points as semi-transparent images, with an inverse color scale. By overlaying semi-transparent inverse color maps, stationary findings will be shaded out in grey, whereas progressing or regressing lesions will be highlighted as white or black in the resulting pseudo-subtraction map. Pseudosubtraction in longitudinal neuroradiology imaging might enhance workflow and imaging assessment.

Complete Lymph Node Dissection in Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this meta-analysis was to estimate the survival after immediate complete lymph node dissection (CLND) compared to observation only (OO) or delayed CLND in patients with melanoma and lymph node metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed in: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Clinical trials and Embase. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: CLND with OO, or immediate CLND with delayed CLND. RESULTS: Four RCTs were included. There was no difference in melanoma-specific survival (MSS) (HR=0.91, 95% CI=0.77-1.08, p=0.29). In a sensitivity analysis, MSS was higher after immediate CLND compared to delayed CLND in patients with nodal metastasis (HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.35-0.74, p=0.0004) without evidence of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: CLND appears to have no additional survival benefit after SNB compared to OO. However, subgroup analysis suggests a time-dependent benefit for early surgical lymph node removal compared to delayed or none.

Inconsistent Reporting Between Meta-analysis Protocol and Publication - A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent reporting in published meta-analyses compared to registered protocol are poorly understood. The aim of the study was to assess inconsistencies between registered protocols and published reports among oncology drug meta-analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed including oncology drug meta-analyses published between January 1st and November 14th 2016 with a published protocol. Two investigators extracted data on: selection criteria, outcome(s) and statistical plan in protocol and manuscript, plus self-acknowledgement of inconsistent reporting between protocol and publication. RESULTS: Protocol registration was present in 19% (23/119) of all oncology drug meta-analyses. In meta-analyses with protocol (n=23), 70% (16/23) had issues with inconsistent reporting between protocol and published report concerning; inclusion criteria, comparator group, intervention, outcome (PICO) or statistical analysis. Self-acknowledgement of changes between protocol and publication was found in 50% (8/16). CONCLUSION: In meta-analyses with protocol, discrepancies between registered protocols and publications are frequent.