Magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance has demonstrated significant potential in the field of interventional radiology in several applications. This article covers the main points of MR-guided hepatic tumor ablation as a representative of MR-guided procedures. Patient selection and appropriate equipment utilization are essential for successful MR-guided tumor ablation. Intra-procedural planning imaging enables the visualization of the tumor and surrounding anatomical structures in most cases without the application of a contrast agent, ensuring optimal planning of the applicator tract. MRI enables real-time, multiplanar imaging, thus simultaneous observation of the applicator and target tumor is possible during targeting with adaptable slice angulations in case of challenging tumor positions. Typical ablation zone appearance during therapy monitoring with MRI enables safe assessment of the therapy result, resulting in a high primary efficacy rate. Recent advancements in ablation probes have shortened treatment times, while technical strategies address applicator visibility issues. MR-imaging immediately after the procedure is used to rule out complications and to assess technical success. Especially in smaller neoplasms, MRI-guided liver ablation demonstrates positive outcomes in terms of technical success rates, as well as promising survival and recurrence rates. Additionally, percutaneous biopsy under MR guidance offers an alternative to classic guidance modalities, providing high soft tissue contrast and thereby increasing the reliability of lesion detection, particularly in cases involving smaller lesions. Despite these advantages, the use of MR guidance in clinical routine is still limited to few indications and centers, due to by high costs, extended duration, and the need for specialized expertise. In conclusion, MRI-guided interventions could benefit from ongoing advancements in hardware, software, and devices. Such progress has the potential to expand diagnostic and treatment options in the field of interventional radiology.

OBJECTIVE: The Working Group of the Gynecological Tumor Committee of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group (JROSG) published recommendations for contouring high-risk clinical target volumes (HR-CTV) on CT for 3-dimentional image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare HR-CTV delineated on CT, referencing recommendations from JROSG, with HR-CTV delineated on MRI, referencing consensus guidelines from the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC ESTRO).
METHODS: Fourteen patients were evaluated. After the insertion of the CT/MR applicator into the patient, CT and MRI were performed. HR-CTVMR was delineated on MRI for clinical examination and HR-CTVCT was delineated on CT retrospectively referencing the MRI just before brachytherapy within a week. The volume and dosimetry of HR-CTV based on a 6 Gy dose of the Manchester system were evaluated.
RESULTS: The median volumes of HR-CTVMR and HR-CTVCT were 24.4 ml (range, 13.6-50.4 ml) and 29.9 ml (range, 13.2-49.2 ml), respectively. Median D90 of HR-CTVMR and HR-CTVCT were 6.7 Gy (range, 5.8-10.1 Gy) and 6.8 Gy (range, 5.1-10.4 Gy), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Somewhat difference could be seen between HR-CTVMR and HR-CTVCT.

BACKGROUND: Image-based brachytherapy for cervical cancer using MRI has been implemented in Australia and New Zealand. The aims of this study were to measure variability in High-risk CTV (HR-CTV) delineation and evaluate dosimetric consequences of this.
METHODS: Nine radiation oncologists, one radiation therapist and two radiologists contoured HR-CTV on 3T MRI datasets from ten consecutive patients undergoing cervical brachytherapy at a single institution. Contour comparisons were performed using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Mean Absolute Surface Distance (MASD). Two reference contours were created for brachytherapy planning: a Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation (STAPLE) and a consensus contour (CONSENSUS). Optimized plans (8 Gy) for both these contours were applied to individual participant\'s contours to assess D90 and D100 coverage of HR CTV. To compare variability in dosimetry, relative standard deviation (rSD) was calculated.
RESULTS: Good concordance (mean DSC≥0.7, MASD≤5 mm) was achieved in 8/10 cases when compared to the STAPLE reference and 6/10 cases when compared to the CONSENSUS reference. Greatest variation was visually seen in the cranio-caudal direction. The average mean rSD across all patients was 27% and 34% for the STAPLE HR-CTV D90 and D100, respectively, and 28% and 35% for the CONSENSUS HR-CTV D90 and D100. Delineation uncertainty resulted in an average dosimetric uncertainty of ±1.5-1.6 Gy per fraction based on an 8 Gy prescribed fraction.
CONCLUSIONS: Delineation of HR-CTV for cervical cancer brachytherapy was consistent amongst observers, suggesting similar interpretation of GEC-ESTRO guidelines. Despite the good concordance, there was dosimetric variation noted, which could be clinically significant.

After an initial negative biopsy there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies.
As a collaborative initiative of the AUA (American Urological Association) and SAR (Society of Abdominal Radiology) Prostate Cancer Disease Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review.
The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of clinically significant disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging is available, it should be strongly considered for any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision of whether to perform magnetic resonance imaging in this setting must also take into account the results of any other biomarkers and the cost of the examination, as well as the availability of high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation. If magnetic resonance imaging is done, it should be performed, interpreted and reported in accordance with PI-RADS version 2 (v2) guidelines. Experience of the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate magnetic resonance imaging into patient care are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results.
Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3 to 5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While transrectal ultrasound guided magnetic resonance imaging fusion or in-bore magnetic resonance imaging targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least 2 targeted cores should be obtained from each magnetic resonance imaging defined target. Given the number of studies showing a proportion of missed clinically significant cancers by magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores, a case specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with negative or low suspicion magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (ie PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value in identifying patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data are needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings, then continued clinical and laboratory followup is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat magnetic resonance imaging in this diagnostic surveillance regimen.

OBJECTIVE: These guidelines are intended for use in assessing the standard for technical success and safety in aorto-iliac percutaneous endovascular interventions.
METHODS: Any recommendation contained in the text comes from the highest level and extension of literature review available to date.
RESULTS: The success of endovascular procedures is strictly related to an accurate planning based mainly on CT- or MR-angiography. TASC II A through C lesions have an endovascular-first option Pre-procedure ASA antiplatelet therapy is advisable in all cases. The application of stents improves the immediate hemodynamic and most likely long-term clinical results. Cumulative mean complication rate is 7.51 % according to the most relevant literature. Most of the complications can be managed by means of percutaneous techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: The design and quality of devices, as well as the easy and accuracy of performing these procedures, have improved over the last decades, leading to the preferential treatment of aorto-iliac steno-obstructive disease via endovascular means, often as first-line therapy, with high technical success rate and low morbidity. This is mirrored by the decreasing number of patients undergoing surgical grafts over the last years with patency, limb salvage, and survival rates equivalent to open reconstruction.

Recent studies have provided the impetus to update the recommendations for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This article provides guidance on the implementation of CRT and is intended to serve as a framework for the implementation of CRT within the Canadian health care system and beyond. These guidelines were developed through a critical evaluation of the existing literature, and expert consensus. The panel unanimously adopted each recommendation. The 9 recommendations relate to patient selection in the presence of comorbidities, delivery and optimization of CRT, and resources required to deliver this therapy. The strength of evidence was weighed, taking full consideration of any risk of bias, and any imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness of the available data. The strength of each recommendation and the quality of evidence were adjudicated. Trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies were considered, as were values, preferences, and resource availability. These guidelines were externally reviewed by experts, modified based on those reviews, and will be updated as new knowledge is acquired.

The use of totally implantable venous access devices in radiology may be associated with complications such as occlusion of the system (because of the high density of some contrast), infection (if the port is not handled in aseptic conditions, using proper barrier protections), and mechanical complications due to the high-pressure administration of contrast by automatic injectors (so-called power injector), including extravasation of contrast media into the soft tissues, subintimal venous or myocardial injection, or serious damage to the device itself (breakage of the external connections, dislocation of the non-coring needle, or breakage of the catheter). The last problem - i.e., the damage of the device from a power injection - is not an unjustified fear, but a reality. A warning by the US Food and Drug Administration of July 2004 reports around 250 complications of this kind, referring to both port and central venous catheters and peripherally inserted central catheter systems, which occurred over a period of several years; in all cases, the damage occurred during the injection of contrast material by means of power injectors for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Though the risk associated with the use of ports in radiodiagnostics is thus clear, it has been suggested that administration of the contrast material via the port may have some advantage in terms of image quality, increased comfort for the patient, and maybe more accurate reproducibility of the patient\'s own follow-up exams. This contention needs to be supported by evidence. Also, since many cancer patients who need frequent computed tomography studies already have totally implantable systems, it would seem reasonable to try to define how and when such systems may safely be used. The purpose of this consensus statement is to define recommendations based on the best available evidence, for the safe use of implantable ports in radiodiagnostics.

暂无摘要。