Gadolinium in Medical Imaging - Usefulness, Toxic Reactions and Possible Countermeasures - A Review

Gadolinium (Gd) is one of the rare-earth elements. The properties of its trivalent cation (Gd3+) make it suitable to serve as the central ion in chelates administered intravenously to patients as a contrast agent in magnetic resonance imaging. Such Gd-chelates have been used for more than thirty years. During the past decades, knowledge has increased about potential harmful effects of Gd-chelates in patients with severe renal dysfunction. In such patients, there is a risk for a potentially disabling and lethal disease, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Restricting the use of Gd-chelates in persons with severely impaired renal function has decreased the occurrence of this toxic effect in the last decade. There has also been an increasing awareness of Gd-retention in the body, even in patients without renal dysfunction. The cumulative number of doses given, and the chemical structure of the chelate given, are factors of importance for retention in tissues. This review describes the chemical properties of Gd and its medically used chelates, as well as its toxicity and potential side effects related to injection of Gd-chelates. Keywords: chelates; contrast induced nephropathy; gadolinium; gadolinium induced respiratory distress syndrome; gadolinium kinetics; gadolinium toxicity; nephrogenic systemic fibrosis; side effects of gadolinium chelates; treatment of gadolinium toxicity. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).Gadolinium in Medical Imaging - Usefulness, Toxic Reactions and Possible Countermeasures - A ReviewpublishedVersio

Accuracy in local staging of prostate cancer by adding a three-dimensional T2-weighted sequence with radial reconstructions in magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: The evidence supporting the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer detection has been established, but its accuracy in local staging is questioned. PURPOSE: To investigate the additional value of multi-planar radial reconstructions of a three-dimensional (3D) T2-weighted (T2W) MRI sequence, intercepting the prostate capsule perpendicularly, for improving local staging of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Preoperative, bi-parametric prostate MRI examinations in 94 patients operated between June 2014 and January 2015 where retrospectively reviewed by two experienced abdominal radiologists. Each patient was presented in two separate sets including diffusion-weighted imaging, without and with the 3D T2W set that included radial reconstructions. Each set was read at least two months apart. Extraprostatic tumor extension (EPE) was assessed according to a 5-point grading scale. Sensitivity and specificity for EPE was calculated and presented as receiver operating characteristics (ROC) with area under the curve (AUC), using histology from whole-mount prostate specimen as gold standard. Inter-rater agreement was calculated for the two different reading modes using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The AUC for detection of EPE for Readers 1 and 2 in the two-dimensional (2D) set was 0.70 and 0.68, respectively, and for the 2D + 3D set 0.62 and 0.65, respectively. Inter-rater agreement (Reader 1 vs. Reader 2) on EPE using Cohen's kappa for the 2D and 2D + 3D set, respectively, was 0.42 and 0.17 (i.e. moderate and poor agreement, respectively). CONCLUSION: The addition of 3D T2W MRI with radial reconstructions did not improve local staging in prostate cancer

CD49a Expression Defines Tissue-Resident CD8+ T Cells Poised for Cytotoxic Function in Human Skin

Tissue-resident memory T (Trm) cells form a heterogeneous population that provides localized protection against pathogens. Here, we identify CD49a as a marker that differentiates CD8(+) Trm cells on a compartmental and functional basis. In human skin epithelia, CD8(+)CD49a(+) Trm cells produced interferon-γ, whereas CD8(+)CD49a(−) Trm cells produced interleukin-17 (IL-17). In addition, CD8(+)CD49a(+) Trm cells from healthy skin rapidly induced the expression of the effector molecules perforin and granzyme B when stimulated with IL-15, thereby promoting a strong cytotoxic response. In skin from patients with vitiligo, where melanocytes are eradicated locally, CD8(+)CD49a(+) Trm cells that constitutively expressed perforin and granzyme B accumulated both in the epidermis and dermis. Conversely, CD8(+)CD49a(–) Trm cells from psoriasis lesions predominantly generated IL-17 responses that promote local inflammation in this skin disease. Overall, CD49a expression delineates CD8(+) Trm cell specialization in human epithelial barriers and correlates with the effector cell balance found in distinct inflammatory skin diseases

Correction to. Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting

Objectives: To update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. Methods Fourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Results: Consensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template. Conclusions: These updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI

Short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy, TME, and optional adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (RAPIDO):a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Systemic relapses remain a major problem in locally advanced rectal cancer. Using short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy and delayed surgery, the Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 54 centres in the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, had a biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, which was classified as high risk on pelvic MRI (with at least one of the following criteria: clinical tumour [cT] stage cT4a or cT4b, extramural vascular invasion, clinical nodal [cN] stage cN2, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral lymph nodes), were mentally and physically fit for chemotherapy, and could be assessed for staging within 5 weeks before randomisation. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a management system with a randomly varying block design (each block size randomly chosen to contain two to four allocations), stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, cT stage, and cN stage, to either the experimental or standard of care group. All investigators remained masked for the primary endpoint until a prespecified number of events was reached. Patients allocated to the experimental treatment group received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy over a maximum of 8 days) followed by six cycles of CAPOX chemotherapy (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 15-21) or nine cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin [folinic acid] 200 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 2, followed by bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously for 22 h on days 1 and 2, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 3-14) followed by total mesorectal excision. Choice of CAPOX or FOLFOX4 was per physician discretion or hospital policy. Patients allocated to the standard of care group received 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy up to 50·4 Gy or 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy up to 50·0 Gy (per physician discretion or hospital policy), with concomitant twice-daily oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 followed by total mesorectal excision and, if stipulated by hospital policy, adjuvant chemotherapy with eight cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of FOLFOX4. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-related treatment failure, defined as the first occurrence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, new primary colorectal tumour, or treatment-related death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the EudraCT, 2010-023957-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01558921, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2011, and June 2, 2016, 920 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment, of whom 912 were eligible (462 in the experimental group; 450 in the standard of care group). Median follow-up was 4·6 years (IQR 3·5-5·5). At 3 years after randomisation, the cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 23·7% (95% CI 19·8-27·6) in the experimental group versus 30·4% (26·1-34·6) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·95; p=0·019). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event during preoperative therapy in both groups was diarrhoea (81 [18%] of 460 patients in the experimental group and 41 [9%] of 441 in the standard of care group) and neurological toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy in the standard of care group (16 [9%] of 187 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 177 (38%) of 460 participants in the experimental group and, in the standard of care group, in 87 (34%) of 254 patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and in 64 (34%) of 187 with adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four participants in the experimental group (one cardiac arrest, one pulmonary embolism, two infectious complications) and in four participants in the standard of care group (one pulmonary embolism, one neutropenic sepsis, one aspiration, one suicide due to severe depression). INTERPRETATION: The observed decreased probability of disease-related treatment failure in the experimental group is probably indicative of the increased efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting. Therefore, the experimental treatment can be considered as a new standard of care in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation, Swedish Cancer Society, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Spanish Clinical Research Network

EURECCA colorectal: multidisciplinary mission statement on better care for patients with colon and rectal cancer in Europe

Background: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last twenty years however still considerable variation exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of cancer care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012 the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about colon and rectum was held looking for multidisciplinary consensus. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries. Methods: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Experts commented and voted on the two web-based online voting rounds before the meeting (between 4th and 25th October and between the 20th November and 3rd December 2012) as well as one online round after the meeting (4th-20th March 2013) and were invited to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. All sentences that were voted on are available on the EURECCA website www.canceraudit.eu. The consensus document was divided in sections describing evidence based algorithms of diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and stage IV separately. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. Results: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. Conclusions: It is feasible to achieve European Consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues using the Delphi method. This consensus embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe