Elena P. Scali

Primary retroperitoneal masses: what is the differential diagnosis?

Primary retroperitoneal masses include a diverse, and often rare, group of neoplastic and non-neoplastic entities that arise within the retroperitoneum but do not originate from any retroperitoneal organ. Their overlapping appearances on cross-sectional imaging may pose a diagnostic challenge to the radiologist; familiarity with characteristic imaging features, together with relevant clinical information, helps to narrow the differential diagnosis. In this article, a systematic approach to identifying and classifying primary retroperitoneal masses is described. The normal anatomy of the retroperitoneum is reviewed with an emphasis on fascial planes, retroperitoneal compartments, and their contents using cross-sectional imaging. Specific radiologic signs to accurately identify an intra-abdominal mass as primary retroperitoneal are presented, first by confirming the location as retroperitoneal and secondly by excluding an organ of origin. A differential diagnosis based on a predominantly solid or cystic appearance, including neoplastic and non-neoplastic entities, is elaborated. Finally, key diagnostic clues based on characteristic imaging findings are described, which help to narrow the differential diagnosis. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the cross-sectional imaging features of primary retroperitoneal masses, including normal retroperitoneal anatomy, radiologic signs of retroperitoneal masses and the differential diagnosis of solid and cystic, neoplastic and non-neoplastic retroperitoneal masses, with a view to assist the radiologist in narrowing the differential diagnosis.

Inflammatory pseudotumours in the abdomen and pelvis: a pictorial essay.

Inflammatory pseudotumours are uncommonly encountered lesions in the abdomen and pelvis that often present with variable and nonspecific imaging features. They may mimic other more common lesions, including malignancy. Within the appropriate clinical context, inflammatory pseudotumours merit consideration in the differential diagnosis of soft-tissue masses within the abdomen and pelvis. A preoperative diagnosis of inflammatory pseudotumour, established through biopsy, may help to differentiate this benign entity from malignancy. In this article, we reviewed the imaging features of inflammatory pseudotumours of the abdomen and pelvis, including liver, spleen, bowel, retroperitoneum, kidney, bladder, uterus, and adnexa.

Inflammatory Pseudotumor of the Liver: A Rare Case of Recurrence Following Surgical Resection

Inflammatory pseudotumor (IPT) of the liver is a rare, benign lesion that may be mistaken for malignancy. IPTs are difficult to diagnose due to non-specific clinical, laboratory and imaging features. We report the case of a 38-year old Asian male who presented with fatigue, weight loss and hepatomegaly. He was found to have a large hepatic IPT and underwent surgical resection; approximately two and a half years later, he developed acute cholangitis secondary to IPT recurrence. We present the imaging features of hepatic IPT using ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We also review the literature on the diagnosis and management of this disease. The unique features of this case include the IPTs recurrence following surgical resection, large size and multiple modalities presented.

Low-Grade Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Breast: Imaging and Histopathologic Characteristics of This Rare Disease

Low-grade adenosquamous carcinoma is a rare histologic subtype of breast carcinoma that has a variable mammographic and sonographic appearance, which overlaps with both benign and malignant neoplasms. Because of its lack of unique imaging features, a diagnosis of low-grade adenosquamous carcinoma is based on histopathology. The recognition of this entity is an important consideration in the differential diagnosis of breast masses and carries implications for prognosis, which is more favorable than other types of breast carcinoma.

Peer Review in Radiology: How Can We Learn From Our Mistakes?

For over a decade, there has been widespread and increasing uptake of peer review in radiology as a mechanism of quality improvement in the United States and Europe. Radiologists across British Columbia will soon be participating in a single province-wide system of peer review. Important lessons are emerging in the literature about the intention, design, and execution of peer-review systems, which we would do well to consider as we embark on creating a system of our own.

Radiology Research in Quality and Safety: Current Trends and Future Needs

Promoting quality and safety research is now essential for radiology as reimbursement is increasingly tied to measures of quality, patient safety, efficiency, and appropriateness of imaging. This article provides an overview of key features necessary to promote successful quality improvement efforts in radiology. Emphasis is given to current trends and future opportunities for directing research. Establishing and maintaining a culture of safety is paramount to organizations wishing to improve patient care. The correct culture must be in place to support quality initiatives and create accountability for patient care. Focused educational curricula are necessary to teach quality and safety-related skills and behaviors to trainees, staff members, and physicians. The increasingly complex healthcare landscape requires that organizations build effective data infrastructures to support quality and safety research. Incident reporting systems designed specifically for medical imaging will benefit quality improvement initiatives by identifying and learning from system errors, enhancing knowledge about safety, and creating safer systems through the implementation of standardized practices and standards. Finally, validated performance measures must be developed to accurately reflect the value of the care we provide for our patients and referring providers. Common metrics used in radiology are reviewed with focus on current and future opportunities for investigation.

A Pictorial Review of Hepatobiliary Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Hepatocyte-Specific Contrast Agents: Uses, Findings, and Pitfalls of Gadoxetate Disodium and Gadobenate Dimeglumine

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a well-established role as a highly specific and accurate modality for characterizing benign and malignant focal liver lesions. In particular, contrast-enhanced MRI using hepatocyte-specific contrast agents (HSCAs) improves lesion detection and characterization compared to other imaging modalities and MRI techniques. In this pictorial review, the mechanism of action of gadolinium-based MRI contrast agents, with a focus on HSCAs, is described. The clinical indications, protocols, and emerging uses of the 2 commercially available combined contrast agents available in the United States, gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine, are discussed. The MRI features of these agents are compared with examples of focal hepatic masses, many of which have been obtained within the same patient therefore allowing direct lesion comparison. Finally, the pitfalls in the use of combined contrast agents in liver MRI are highlighted.

The Science of Quality Improvement

Scientific rigor should be consistently applied to quality improvement (QI) research to ensure that healthcare interventions improve quality and patient safety before widespread implementation. This article provides an overview of the various study designs that can be used for QI research depending on the stage of investigation, scope of the QI intervention, constraints on the researchers and intervention being studied, and evidence needed to support widespread implementation. The most commonly used designs in QI studies are quasi-experimental designs. Randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized trials are typically reserved for large-scale research projects evaluating the effectiveness of QI interventions that may be implemented broadly, have more than a minimal impact on patients, or are costly. Systematic reviews of QI studies will play an important role in providing overviews of evidence supporting particular QI interventions or methods of achieving change. We also review the general requirements for developing quality measures for reimbursement, public reporting, and pay-for-performance initiatives. A critical part of the testing process for quality measures includes assessment of feasibility, reliability, validity, and unintended consequences. Finally, publication and critical appraisal of QI work is discussed as an essential component to generating evidence supporting QI initiatives in radiology.