Clinical research aiming at objectively identifying and characterizing diseases via clinical observations and biological and radiological findings is a critical initial research step when establishing objective diagnostic criteria and treatments. Failure to first define such diagnostic criteria may lead research on pathogenesis and etiology to serious confounding biases and erroneous medical interpretations. This is particularly the case for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and more particularly for the so-called \"provocation tests\", which do not investigate the causal origin of EHS but rather the EHS-associated particular environmental intolerance state with hypersensitivity to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, because those tests depend on multiple EMF-associated physical and biological parameters and have been conducted in patients without having first defined EHS objectively and/or endpoints adequately, they cannot presently be considered to be valid pathogenesis research methodologies. Consequently, the negative results obtained by these tests do not preclude a role of EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects. This international consensus report pleads for the acknowledgement of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and for its inclusion in the WHO International Classification of Diseases.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be noninvasively diagnosed on the basis of its characteristic imaging findings of arterial phase enhancement and portal/delayed \"washout\" on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in cirrhotic patients. However, different specific diagnostic criteria have been proposed by several countries and major academic societies. In 2018, major guideline updates were proposed by the Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Korean Liver Cancer Association and National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) of Korea. In addition to dynamic CT and MRI using extracellular contrast media, these new guidelines now include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using hepatobiliary contrast media as the first-line diagnostic test, while the KLCA-NCC and EASL guidelines also include contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as the second-line diagnostic test. Therefore, hepatobiliary MR contrast media and CEUS will be increasingly used for the noninvasive diagnosis and staging of HCC. In this review, we discuss the emerging role of hepatobiliary phase MRI and CEUS for the diagnosis of HCC and also review the changes in the HCC diagnostic criteria in major guidelines, including the KLCA-NCC practice guidelines version 2018. In addition, we aimed to pay particular attention to some remaining issues in the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC.

暂无摘要。

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the world\'s most common cancers, and has one of the highest mortality rates. The last few decades have seen great progress in preventing, diagnosing and treating this disease, providing undeniable impact on patients\' prognosis and quality of life. At all these stages of CRC management, imaging techniques play an essential role. This article reviews some important issues concerning the use of various radiological techniques in the screening, diagnosis, staging, assessment of treatment response, and follow-up of patients with CRC. It also includes a number of practical recommendations on indications for use, technical requirements, minimum information required in the radiology report, evaluation criteria for the response to various drugs, and the recommended frequency at which different examinations should be performed. This consensus statement is the result of cooperation between the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Radiology (SERAM).

OBJECTIVE: Although contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), dynamic magnetic resonance (MRI) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are the standard of care to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the clinical and economic benefits of the updated AASLD diagnostic algorithm, including the drop of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), have not been previously evaluated.
METHODS: 119 de novo liver nodules detected during ultrasound (US) surveillance in 98 cirrhotics, 7 <1cm, 67 1-2cm, 45 >2cm in size, were sequentially examined by CEUS and CT, using MRI as a rescue approach in patients lacking a typical vascular pattern for HCC by one or both contrast techniques in the 1-2cm nodules and by CT in the >2cm nodules. A FNB was performed when required to meet both 2005 and 2010 AASLD criteria.
RESULTS: Eighty-four (70%) nodules were HCC: the radiological diagnosis was done in 38 (88%) of those 1-2cm and in 38 (95%) for those >2cm HCCs according to 2010 AASLD criteria. CT or MRI detected 13 HCC nodules that were missed by unenhanced US. Despite an absolute specificity, CEUS failed to identify any HCC uncharacterized by CT or MRI. By updated AASLD criteria, 6 (17%) FNB procedures were spared in patients with 1-2cm nodules (p=0.025), as compared to 2005 criteria. The 2010 vs. 2005 AASLD per patient cost was similar in 1-2cm nodules, 432 € vs. 451 € (p=0.46), but lower in >2cm nodules, 248 € vs. 321 € (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A sequential study with either CT or MRI enhances the radiological diagnosis of HCC and reduces costs and liver biopsy need.

The aim of this review is to present the similarities and differences between the latest guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocelullar carcinoma (HCC) of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and Japanese Society of Hepatology. All the four guidelines defined a typical HCC vascular pattern as the homogeneous hyperenhancement (wash-in) in the arterial phase followed by wash-out in the venous or late phase. The AASLD and EASL guidelines accept only four-phase computed tomography and dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for HCC diagnosis, whereas the APASL and Japanese guidelines also accept contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Regarding CEUS, the APASL guidelines accept the use of Levovist or Sonazoid as contrast agents, whereas the Japanese guidelines accept only the use of Sonazoid. The AASLD and EASL guidelines recommend using only extracellular contrast agents such as gadolinium for MRI, whereas the APASL guidelines also included the use of super paramagnetic iron oxid-MRI, and the Japanese guidelines recommended the use of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylentriamine pentaacetic acid-MRI. The AASLD and EASL guidelines propos a diagnostic algorithm starting from the tumor size, whereas the APASL and Japanese guidelines recommend an algorithm starting from arterial tumor vascularity (hyper- or hypovascular in the arterial phase). In conclusion, important differences exist among the Western and Eastern guidelines for noninvasive HCC diagnosis.