Alessandro Castellani

Safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in splanchnic vein thrombosis associated with myeloproliferative neoplasms

Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is one of the vascular complications of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). We designed a phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib in reducing splenomegaly and improving disease‐related symptoms in patients with MPN‐associated SVT. Patients diagnosed with myelofibrosis (12 cases), polycythemia vera (5 cases) and essential thrombocythemia (4 cases) received ruxolitinib for 24 weeks in the core study period. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and splanchnic vein circulation by echo‐Doppler analysis. Nineteen patients carried JAK2V617F, one had MPLW515L, and one CALRL367fs*46 mutation. Eighteen patients had spleno‐portal‐mesenteric thrombosis, two had Budd–Chiari syndrome, and one had both sites involved; 16 patients had esophageal varices. Ruxolitinib was well tolerated with hematological toxicities consistent with those of patients without SVT and no hemorrhagic adverse events were recorded. After 24 weeks of treatment, spleen volume reduction ≥35% by MRI was achieved by 6/21 (29%) patients, and a ≥50% spleen length reduction by palpation at any time up to week 24 was obtained by 13/21 (62%) patients. At week 72, 8 of the 13 (62%) patients maintained the spleen response by palpation. No significant effect of treatment on esophageal varices or in splanchnic circulation was observed. MPN‐related symptoms, evaluated by MPN‐symptom assessment form (SAF) TSS questionnaire, improved significantly during the first 4 weeks and remained stable up to week 24. In conclusion, this trial shows that ruxolitinib is safe in patients with MPN‐associated SVT, and effective in reducing spleen size and disease‐related symptoms.

Focal Liver Lesions Classification and Characterization: What Value Do DWI and ADC Have?

Objective The aim of this work was to analyze the value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in the classification/characterization of focal liver lesions (FLLs). Methods Retrospective study, approved by ethical board, of 100 proven FLLs (20 hemangiomas, 20 focal nodular hyperplasia, 20 dysplastic nodules, 20 hepatocellular carcinomas, and 20 metastases) was performed by 1.5-T MR. For each lesion, 2 readers, blinded of medical history, have evaluated 6 sets of images: set A (T1/T2-weighted images), set B (set A + DWI), set C (set B + apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] map), set D (set A + dynamic and hepatobiliary phases), set E (set D + DWI), set F (set E + ADC map). Results In unenhanced images, the evaluation of the ADC improves the accuracy in classification/characterization (+9%/14%, respectively), whereas in enhanced images the accuracy was increased by DWI (+7%/12%, respectively) and ADC (+13%/19%, respectively). Diffusion-weighted imaging does not improve classification/characterization of hemangiomas, may be useful in focal nodular hyperplasia/dysplastic nodules vs metastases/hepatocellular carcinoma differentiation, and increases the classification/characterization of metastases in both unenhanced and enhanced images. Conclusions Diffusion-weighted imaging may improve classification/characterization of FLLs at unenhanced/enhanced examinations.

Repetition of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam CT: Comparison among three different kinds of head support

Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repetition rate of examination due to motion artifacts in horizontal cone beam computed tomography, using three different kinds of head support, with reference to the patients age. Further purpose was to evaluate how comfortable head supports were. Materials and Methods: Seven hundred and fifty patients underwent a maxillofacial/dental arches volumetric imaging scan. They were divided into three groups depending on the head support used: foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet. Each group was subdivided into three age groups: ≤18-year-old, 19–65-year-old, and ≥66-year-old patients. A severity index of motion artifacts, divided into four tiers from absence to remarkable artifacts, was adopted. Finally, each patient gave their judgment about the head support comfort by a questionnaire including ten yes/no questions. A three-score scale (insufficient, sufficient, and good) was used to judge the comfort. Collected data were analyzed using the SPSS® version 23.0 statistical analysis software. Results: Forty-one patients (5.4%) repeated the examination. In 16 (2.1%), 15 (2.0%), and 10 (1.3%) of them, foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet were used, respectively. Examination was repeated in 5.3%, 3.8%, and 10.6% in ≤18-year-old, 19–65-year-old, and ≥66-year-old patients, respectively. Patients almost always judged good the comfort for each kind of support. The lowest percentage of satisfaction was observed for the headrest with head strap and was judged good in 78% of the cases. Conclusions: The repetition rate of examination showed similar values among the foam headrest, foam headrest with head strap, and head restraint helmet in under 66-year-old patients. In over 65-year-old patients, the head restraint helmet obviously decreased the repetition rate of examination. All three head supports were good comfort, especially the foam headrest.