J. Louis Hinshaw

Unsuspected extracolonic findings at screening CT colonography: clinical and economic impact.

PURPOSE To evaluate the frequency and estimated costs of additional diagnostic workup for extracolonic findings detected at computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a large screening cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study, which had institutional review board approval, evaluated extracolonic findings in 2195 consecutive asymptomatic adults (1199 women, 996 men; age range, 40-90 years; mean age, 58.0 years +/- 8.1 [standard deviation]) undergoing low-dose CT colonographic screening performed without contrast material at a single institution over a 20-month period. All diagnostic workups generated because of extracolonic findings were reviewed. Associated costs were estimated by using 2006 Medicare average reimbursement. Testing for statistical significance was performed by using the chi(2) and t tests. RESULTS Further diagnostic workup for unsuspected extracolonic findings was performed in 133 (6.1%) of 2195 patients, including 18 patients in whom additional workup was not recommended by the radiologist. Additional testing included ultrasonography (n = 64), CT (n = 59), magnetic resonance imaging (n = 11), other diagnostic imaging tests (n = 19), nonsurgical invasive procedures (n = 19), and surgical procedures (n = 22). Benign findings were confirmed in the majority of cases, but relevant new diagnoses were made in 55 (2.5%) patients, including extracolonic malignancies in nine patients. The mean cost per patient for nonsurgical procedures was

Pulmonary Thermal Ablation: Comparison of Radiofrequency and Microwave Devices by Using Gross Pathologic and CT Findings in a Swine Model

31.02 (95% confidence interval:

Primary 2D Versus Primary 3D Polyp Detection at Screening CT Colonography

23.72,

Hepatic Steatosis (Fatty Liver Disease) in Asymptomatic Adults Identified by Unenhanced Low-Dose CT

38.94); that for surgical procedures was

Assessment of volumetric growth rates of small colorectal polyps with CT colonography: a longitudinal study of natural history

67.54 (95% confidence interval:

Percutaneous Tumor Ablation Tools: Microwave, Radiofrequency, or Cryoablation—What Should You Use and Why?

38.62,

Tissue contraction caused by radiofrequency and microwave ablation: a laboratory study in liver and lung.

101.55). CONCLUSION Detection of relevant unsuspected extracolonic disease at CT colonographic screening is not rare, accounting for a relatively large percentage of cases in which additional workup was recommended. Judicious handling of potential extracolonic findings is warranted to balance the cost of additional workup against the potential for early detection of important disease, because many findings will prove to be of no clinical consequence.

Comparison of Percutaneous and Laparoscopic Cryoablation for the Treatment of Solid Renal Masses

PURPOSE To compare the performance of equivalently sized radiofrequency and microwave ablation applicators in a normal porcine lung model. MATERIALS AND METHODS All experiments were approved by an institutional animal care and use committee. A total of 18 ablations were performed in vivo in normal porcine lungs. By using computed tomographic (CT) fluoroscopic guidance, a 17-gauge cooled triaxial microwave antenna (n = 9) and a 17-gauge cooled radiofrequency (RF) electrode (n = 9) were placed percutaneously. Ablations were performed for 10 minutes by using either 125 W of microwave power or 200 W of RF power delivered with an impedance-based pulsing algorithm. CT images were acquired every minute during ablation to monitor growth. Animals were sacrificed after the procedure. Ablation zones were then excised and sectioned transverse to the applicator in 5-mm increments. Minimum and maximum diameter, cross-sectional area, length, and circularity were measured from gross specimens and CT images. Comparisons of each measurement were performed by using a mixed-effects model; P < .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference. RESULTS Mean diameter (3.32 cm +/- 0.19 [standard deviation] vs 2.70 cm +/- 0.23, P < .001) was 25% larger with microwave ablation and mean cross-sectional area (8.25 cm(2) +/- 0.92 vs 5.45 cm(2) +/- 1.14, P < .001) was 50% larger with microwave ablation, compared with RF ablation. With microwave ablation, the zones of ablation were also significantly more circular in cross section (mean circularity, 0.90 +/- 0.06 vs 0.82 +/- 0.09; P < .05). One small pneumothorax was noted during RF ablation but stabilized without intervention. CONCLUSION Microwave ablation with a 17-gauge high-power triaxial antenna creates larger and more circular zones of ablation than does a similarly sized RF applicator in a preclinical animal model. Microwave ablation may be a more effective treatment of lung tumors.

Laboratory investigationTissue Contraction Caused by Radiofrequency and Microwave Ablation: A Laboratory Study in Liver and Lung

OBJECTIVE Disparate results from the existing large CT colonography (CTC) trials suggest that 2D polyp detection is less sensitive than 3D detection, but no direct evidence exists to support this claim. Our goal was to assess the sensitivity of primary 2D polyp detection with cases from the Department of Defense CTC screening trial and compare results with the primary 3D evaluation and previous 2D CTC trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ten radiologists, blinded to polyp findings, retrospectively interpreted 730 consecutive colonoscopy-proven CTC cases in asymptomatic adults using a primary 2D approach, with 3D reserved for problem solving. Primary 2D CTC performance was compared with the primary 3D CTC results from the original trial of 1,233 asymptomatic adults. The 10 2D reviewers were significantly more experienced in CTC interpretation (> 100 cases interpreted) than the six reviewers from the original 3D trial. RESULTS Primary 2D CTC sensitivity for adenomas > or = 6 mm was 44.1% (56/127), compared with 85.7% (180/210) at 3D (p < 0.001). Sensitivity of 2D CTC for adenomas > or = 10 mm was 75.0% (27/36) compared with 92.2% (47/51) at 3D (p = 0.027). Similar sensitivity trends were seen for the by-patient analysis and for all polyps at the 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds. By-patient specificity for 2D evaluation at the 10-mm threshold was 98.1% (676/689), compared with 97.4% (1,131/1,161) at 3D evaluation (p = 0.336). CONCLUSION Primary 2D CTC is less sensitive than primary 3D CTC for polyp detection in low-prevalence screening cohorts. The disappointing 2D sensitivity in this study was very similar to results obtained with primary 2D evaluation in previous CTC trials.

Radiofrequency Ablation of Peripheral Liver Tumors: Intraperitoneal 5% Dextrose in Water Decreases Postprocedural Pain

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of hepatic steatosis in an asymptomatic U.S. adult population using attenuation values at unenhanced CT as the reference standard. We also assessed the utility of known clinical risk factors for diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS For 3,357 consecutive asymptomatic adults (1,865 women and 1,492 men; mean age, 57.0 years), hepatic and splenic CT attenuation values (Hounsfield units) were obtained by unenhanced CT using a low-dose colonography technique for colorectal cancer screening. Multiple attenuation criteria for steatosis were applied, including liver thresholds and comparison of liver and spleen attenuation. Relevant clinical risk factors were compared against a CT liver attenuation < or = 40 HU, which has been shown to exclude mild steatosis. RESULTS Mean liver attenuation was 58.8 +/- 10.8 (SD) HU. The prevalence of moderate-to-severe hepatic steatosis (defined by liver attenuation < or = 40 HU) was 6.2% (208/3,357). For CT attenuation criteria that include milder degrees of steatosis, prevalence increased to as high as 45.9% (1,542/3,357) for a liver-to-spleen attenuation ratio of < or = 1.1. Overweight status (body mass index > 25) was a sensitive indicator for moderate-to-severe steatosis (92.8%) but was highly nonspecific (37.5%). Other clinical risk factors, such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, alcohol overuse, and hepatitis, were more specific (77.6-92.4%) but highly insensitive (1.9-37.5%). Combining clinical risk factors did not substantially increase the accuracy for screening. CONCLUSION Assessment of liver attenuation by use of unenhanced CT represents an objective and noninvasive means for detection of asymptomatic hepatic steatosis, whereas clinical risk factor assessment is unreliable. Further longitudinal investigation is needed to determine the most appropriate attenuation threshold and the risk for disease progression to steatohepatitis and cirrhosis.