Discriminating radiation injury from recurrent tumor with [18F]PARPi and amino acid PET in mouse models

Background Radiation injury can be indistinguishable from recurrent tumor on standard imaging. Current protocols for this differential diagnosis require one or more follow-up imaging studies, long dynamic acquisitions, or complex image post-processing; despite much research, the inability to confidently distinguish between these two entities continues to pose a significant dilemma for the treating clinician. Using mouse models of both glioblastoma and radiation necrosis, we tested the potential of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-targeted PET imaging with [18F]PARPi to better discriminate radiation injury from tumor. Results In mice with experimental radiation necrosis, lesion uptake on [18F]PARPi-PET was similar to contralateral uptake (1.02 ± 0.26 lesion/contralateral %IA/ccmax ratio), while [18F]FET-PET clearly delineated the contrast-enhancing region on MR (2.12 ± 0.16 lesion/contralateral %IA/ccmax ratio). In mice with focal intracranial U251 xenografts, tumor visualization on PARPi-PET was superior to FET-PET, and lesion-to-contralateral activity ratios (max/max, p = 0.034) were higher on PARPi-PET than on FET-PET. Conclusions A murine model of radiation necrosis does not demonstrate [18F]PARPi avidity, and [18F]PARPi-PET is better than [18F]FET-PET in distinguishing radiation injury from brain tumor. [18F]PARPi-PET can be used for discrimination between recurrent tumor and radiation injury within a single, static imaging session, which may be of value to resolve a common dilemma in neuro-oncology

Novel Budesonide Suppository and Standard Budesonide Rectal Foam Induce High Rates of Clinical Remission and Mucosal Healing in Active Ulcerative Proctitis : a Randomised, Controlled, Non-inferiority Trial

Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proctitis is the least extensive type of ulcerative colitis, for which rectal therapy is rarely studied and is underused. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient's preference of a novel formulation of budesonide suppository 4 mg, compared with a commercially available budesonide rectal foam 2 mg, for the treatment of mild to moderate ulcerative proctitis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either budesonide 4 mg suppository or budesonide 2 mg foam once daily for 8 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were changes from baseline to Week 8 in clinical symptoms, for which clinical remission was defined as having a modified Ulcerative Colitis-Disease Activity Index [UC-DAI] subscore for stool frequency of 0 or 1 and a subscore for rectal bleeding of 0, and mucosal healing, defined as having a modified UC-DAI subscore for mucosal appearance of 0 or 1. Using a more stringent criterion, we additionally analysed deepened mucosal healing, which was defined as a mucosal appearance subscore of 0. Patient's preference, physician's global assessment, and quality of life were also assessed and analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 286 and 291 patients were included in the 4 mg suppository and 2 mg foam groups, respectively. Budesonide 4 mg suppository met the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority to the 2 mg foam in both co-primary endpoints of clinical remission and mucosal healing. Secondary endpoints consistently supported the non-inferiority of the suppository. Trends in favour of the suppository were observed in the subgroup of mesalazine non-responders. More patients reported a preference for the suppository over rectal foam. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ulcerative proctitis, budesonide 4 mg suppository was non-inferior to budesonide 2 mg foam in efficacy, and both were safe and well tolerated.publishersversionPeer reviewe

The DICA Endoscopic Classification for Diverticular Disease of the Colon Shows a Significant Interobserver Agreement among Community Endoscopists: an International Study

Background & Aims: The Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) endoscopic classification of diverticulosis and diverticular disease (DD) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement on this classification in an international endoscopists community setting. Methods: A total of 96 doctors (82.9% endoscopists) independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (kappa) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of interrater agreement. Results: Overall agreement in using DICA was 91.8% with a free-marginal kappa of 88% (95% CI 80-95). The overall agreement levels were: DICA 1, 85.2%; DICA 2, 96.5%; DICA 3, 99.5%. The free marginal. was: DICA 1 = 0.753, DICA 2 = 0.958, DICA 3 = 0.919. The agreement about the main endoscopic items was 83.4% (k 67%) for diverticular extension, 62.6% (k 65%) for number of diverticula for each district, 86.8% (k 82%) for presence of inflammation, and 98.5 (k 98%) for presence of complications. Conclusions: The overall interrater agreement in this study ranges from good to very good. DICA score is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system for diverticulosis and DD

International Consensus on Diverticulosis and Diverticular Disease. Statements from the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease

The statements produced by the Chairmen and Speakers of the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease, held in Madrid on April 11th-13th 2019, are reported. Topics such as current and evolving concepts on the pathogenesis, the course of the disease, the news in diagnosing, hot topics in medical and surgical treatments, and finally, critical issues on the disease were reviewed by the Chairmen who proposed 39 statements graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. The vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as 67% agreement of the participants. The voting group consisted of 124 physicians from 18 countries, and agreement with all statements was provided. Comments were added explaining some controversial areas

Diverticular disease. Clinical appearance, conservative treatment, primary and secondary prophylaxis

Diverticula of the colon are very common and usually asymptomatic but 20% of people with diverticulosis develop symptoms and sometimes also complications, such as diverticulitis with abscesses or perforation and bleeding. In the long-term stenoses or a conglomerate can occur. The treatment depends on the type of diverticular disease, on the knowledge of risk indicators and imaging with sonography or computed tomography (CT). The uncomplicated diverticular disease is treated on an outpatient and conservative basis, while complicated diverticular disease is treated on an inpatient basis and often surgically