Role of pelvic CT during surveillance of patients with resected biliary tract cancer

Abstract Background The aim of the study was to identify the frequency of isolated pelvic metastasis with the goal of determining the utility of pelvic CT as a surveillance strategy in patients with resected biliary tract cancer (BTC). Methods Study eligibility criteria included patients 18 years or older with BTC who underwent R0 or R1 surgical resection at University of Michigan between 2004 and 2018, with a minimum 6-month disease-free surveillance period. CT and MRI reports were independently graded by two radiologists as positive (organ metastasis, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or enlarged lymph nodes), equivocal (borderline lymph nodes or non-nodular ascites), or negative (absence of or benign findings) in the abdomen and pelvis separately. A 3rd blinded radiologist reviewed all positive and equivocal scans. Clinic notes were reviewed to identify new or worsening signs and symptoms that would warrant an earlier pelvic surveillance scan. A 95% binomial proportion confidence interval was used to find the probability of isolated pelvic metastasis. Results BTC were anatomically classified as extra-hepatic (distal and hilar) cholangiocarcinoma (38; 25%), intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma (57; 38%), and gallbladder cancer (56; 37%). 151 patients met eligibility criteria, of which 123 (81%) had no pelvic metastasis, 51 (34%) had localized upper abdominal metastasis, and 23 (15%) had concomitant abdominal and pelvic metastasis. Median follow-up time was 19.2 months. One (0%) subject with resected BTC (intra-hepatic) developed isolated osseous pelvic metastasis during surveillance (95% CI 0.004–0.1; p = 0.0003). 3 (2%) subjects developed isolated simple ascites (equivocal grade) without concurrent upper abdominal metastasis. Conclusion Isolated pelvic metastasis is a rare occurrence during surveillance in patients with resected BTCs, and therefore, follow-up pelvic CT in absence of specific symptoms may be unnecessary

Bosniak Classification of Cystic Renal Masses, Version 2019: An Update Proposal and Needs Assessment

Cystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is almost certainly overdiagnosed and overtreated. Efforts to diagnose and treat RCC at a curable stage result in many benign neoplasms and indolent cancers being resected without clear benefit. This is especially true for cystic masses, which compared with solid masses are more likely to be benign and, when malignant, less aggressive. For more than 30 years, the Bosniak classification has been used to stratify the risk of malignancy in cystic renal masses. Although it is widely used and still effective, the classification does not formally incorporate masses identified at MRI or US or masses that are incompletely characterized but are highly likely to be benign, and it is affected by interreader variability and variable reported malignancy rates. The Bosniak classification system cannot fully differentiate aggressive from indolent cancers and results in many benign masses being resected. This proposed update to the Bosniak classification addresses some of these shortcomings. The primary modifications incorporate MRI, establish definitions for previously vague imaging terms, and enable a greater proportion of masses to enter lower-risk classes. Although the update will require validation, it aims to expand the number of cystic masses to which the Bosniak classification can be applied while improving its precision and accuracy for the likelihood of cancer in each class

Society of Abdominal Radiology disease-focused panel on renal cell carcinoma: update on past, current, and future goals

The disease-focused panel (DFP) program was created by the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) as a mechanism to "improve patient care, education, and research" in a "particular disease or a particular aspect of a disease". The DFP on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was proposed in 2014 and has been functional for 4 years. Although nominally focused on RCC, the scope of the DFP has included indeterminate renal masses because many cannot be assigned a specific diagnosis when detected. Since its founding, the DFP has been active in a variety of clinical, research, and educational projects to optimize the care of patients with known or suspected RCC. The DFP is utilizing multi-institutional and cross-disciplinary collaboration to differentiate benign from malignant disease, optimize the management of early stage RCC, and ultimately to differentiate indolent from aggressive cancers. Several additional projects have worked to develop a quantitative biomarker that predicts metastatic RCC response to anti-angiogenic therapy. While disease focus is the premise by which all DFPs are created, it is likely that in the future the RCC DFP will need to expand or create new panels that will focus on other specific aspects of RCC-a result that the program's founders envisioned. New knowledge creates a need for more focus