Adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma and invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma are relatively new classification entities which replace the now retired term, bronchoalveolar carcinoma (BAC). The radiographic appearance of these lesions ranges from pure, ground glass nodules to large, solid masses. A thorough understanding of the new classification is essential to radiologists who work with MDT colleagues to provide accurate staging and treatment. A 2-year review was performed of all surgically resected cases of adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma in our institution. Cases are broken down by age, gender, tumour type and tumour location. A pictorial review is presented to illustrate the radiologic and pathologic features of each entity.

Adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma and invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma are relatively new classification entities which replace the now retired term, bronchoalveolar carcinoma (BAC). The radiographic appearance of these lesions ranges from pure, ground glass nodules to large, solid masses. A thorough understanding of the new classification is essential to radiologists who work with MDT colleagues to provide accurate staging and treatment. A 2-year review was performed of all surgically resected cases of adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma in our institution. Cases are broken down by age, gender, tumour type and tumour location. A pictorial review is presented to illustrate the radiologic and pathologic features of each entity.

Background Supine or prone positioning of the patient on the gantry table is the current standard of care for CT-guided lung biopsy; positioning biopsy side down was hypothesized to be associated with lower pneumothorax rate. Purpose To assess the effect of positioning patients biopsy side down during CT-guided lung biopsy on the incidence of pneumothorax, chest drain placement, and hemoptysis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was performed between January 2013 and December 2016 in a tertiary referral oncology center. Patients undergoing CT-guided lung biopsy were either positioned in (a) the standard prone or supine position or (b) the lateral decubitus position with the biopsy side down. The relationship between patient position and pneumothorax, drain placement, and hemoptysis was assessed by using multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 373 consecutive patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 68 years ± 10), including 196 women and 177 men, were included in the study. Among these patients, 184 were positioned either prone or supine depending on the most direct path to the lesion and 189 were positioned biopsy side down. Pneumothorax occurred in 50 of 184 (27.2%) patients who were positioned either prone or supine and in 20 of 189 (10.6%) patients who were positioned biopsy side down (P < .001). Drain placement was required in 10 of 184 (5.4%) patients who were positioned either prone or supine and in eight of 189 (4.2%) patients who were positioned biopsy side down (P = .54). Hemoptysis occurred in 19 of 184 (10.3%) patients who were positioned prone or supine and in 10 of 189 (5.3%) patients who were positioned biopsy side down (P = .07). Prone or supine patient position (P = .001, odds ratio [OR] = 2.7 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.4, 4.9]), emphysema along the needle path (P = .02, OR = 2.1 [95% CI: 1.1, 4.0]), and lesion size (P = .02, OR = 1.0 [95% CI: 0.9, 1.0]) were independent risk factors for developing pneumothorax. Conclusion Positioning a patient biopsy side down for percutaneous CT-guided lung biopsy reduced the incidence of pneumothorax compared with the supine or prone position. © RSNA, 2019.

A device for the training and quantitative assessment of the competency of trainee radiologists in the technically challenging area of breast sonography was developed and evaluated. Currently, suitable commercially available devices are lacking, and there is a growing realization that the reliance on direct exposure to patients for learning may not represent best practice from either the trainees' or patients' perspective. Three devices (PI, PII and PIII) were designed to produce very realistic sonographic images of breast morphology with a range of embedded pathologies. The pilot evaluation used a case study research design to evaluate the role of the anthropomorphic breast sonography training device in training and assessment in a clinical environment. Through the case study, it was possible to evaluate the process and relationships when using this type of training intervention for a small group of radiology resident trainees. The investigation involved a baseline assessment of trainees' (n = 4) ability to detect and characterize all lesions in PI, followed by a 4-wk training period on PII and a post-training assessment using PIII. The evaluation revealed an improvement of 30% ± 8% in the trainee's performance from pre- to post-training. It was expected that the performance of the trainees would improve as the training phantom described in this study aligns with the learning theory of constructivism and fits the ideal specifications of a medical training device in terms of its realism and facilitation of self-directed learning and deliberate practice of the trainees. The device provides a useful platform upon which training and assessment can be facilitated.

Breast implant–associated lymphoma has recently gained wide recognition. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is the most frequently diagnosed subtype in this setting but the spectrum is broadening. A 66-year-old woman developed swelling and itch around her saline implant 6 years after its insertion. Imaging revealed a fluid collection surrounding the implant with an adjacent mass. Microscopy showed sclerotic tissue punctuated by discrete cellular nodules comprising small lymphocytes, eosinophils and interspersed large atypical Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS)-like cells. The HRS-like cells stained positively for CD30 and CD15 by immunohistochemistry. Small T-lymphocytes formed rosettes around HRS-like cells. Appearances were consistent with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Multiplex polymerase chain reaction demonstrated no clonal rearrangements of immunoglobulin or T-cell receptor genes, however, a t(14;18)(q32;q21)BCL2-JH translocation involving the major breakpoint region of the bcl2 gene was present. Staging positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan revealed FDG-avid masses in the right axilla and pelvis. Subsequent pathological examination identified low-grade follicular lymphoma (FL) with a t(14;18) translocation at these sites. To our knowledge, this is the first case of HL arising adjacent to a breast implant. An awareness of this diagnosis is important as classical HL, with its prominent mixed inflammatory background, may be overlooked as a reactive process when histologically assessing capsulectomy specimens. It is also important in the differential diagnosis for implant-associated ALCL as both contain large atypical CD30-positive cells highlighting the need for full immunohistochemical and molecular workup in such cases. This case also adds to the large body of literature regarding the association between HL and FL.

Background Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours (IMTs) are rare sarcomas that were first described in the lung. They are composed of myofibroblastic mesenchymal spindle cells accompanied by an inflammatory infiltrate of plasma cells. Complete resection is the treatment of choice. There is currently no standard treatment for inoperable or recurrent disease. Expression of ALK protein triggered by ALK gene rearrangement at chromosome 2p23 has been found in 36%-60% of IMTs. Case report We report a rapid early response to crizotinib as neoadjuvant therapy, enabling surgical excision of a large ALK-translocated IMT, which resulted in complete disease clearance. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case in the literature of a patient with IMT in whom crizotinib was used successfully in the neoadjuvant or curative setting.

“All men are liable to error; and most men are, in many points, by passion or interest, under temptation to it”. Locke, John, An Essay concerning Human Understanding (1690), bk. 4, ch. 20, sect. 17. In all branches of medicine, there is an inevitable element of patient exposure to problems arising from human error, and this is increasingly the subject of bad publicity, often skewed towards an assumption that perfection is achievable, and that any error or discrepancy represents a wrong that must be punished1. Radiology involves decision-making under conditions of uncertainty2, and therefore cannot always produce infallible interpretations or reports. The interpretation of a radiologic study is not a binary process; the “answer” is not always normal or abnormal, cancer or not. The final report issued by a radiologist is influenced by many variables, not least among them the information available at the time of reporting. In some circumstances, radiologists are asked specific questions (in requests for studies) which they endeavour to answer; in many cases, no obvious specific question arises from the provided clinical details (e.g. “chest pain”, “abdominal pain”), and the reporting radiologist must strive to interpret what may be the concerns of the referring doctor. (A friend of one of the authors, while a resident in a North American radiology department, observed a staff radiologist dictate a chest x-ray reporting stating “No evidence of leprosy”. When subsequently confronted by an irate respiratory physician asking for an explanation of the seemingly-perverse report, he explained that he had no idea what the clinical concerns were, as the clinical details section of the request form had been left blank). Notwithstanding these complexities, the public frequently expects that a medical investigation will produce “the correct answer”, all the time. This unfortunate over-simplification of a multi-factorial process is often informed by representations on TV dramas, media reports describing every discrepancy or dispute over interpretation as a scandal, and the political imperative to divert anger over perceived failings on to others, preferably easy targets, often portrayed and perceived as privileged. Amid many possibilities of error, it would be strange indeed to be always in the right. Peter Mere Latham (1789-1875), General remarks on the Practice of Medicine, The Heart and its Affections Ch. IV With respect to radiological investigations, the use of the term “error” is often unsuitable; it is more appropriate to concentrate on “discrepancies” between a report and a retrospective review of a film or outcome1. Professional body guidelines recommend that all imaging procedures should include an expert opinion from a radiologist, given by means of a written report or comment3. “Opinion” may be defined as “a conclusion arrived at after some weighing of evidence, but open to debate or suggestion”, and thus an expert’s opinion should not be expected to be incontrovertible4. Error implies a mistake (an incorrect interpretation of an imaging study, in this context). In order for a report to be erroneous, it follows that a correct report must also be possible. Because of the subjectivity of image interpretation, the definition of error depends on “expert opinion”. An observer makes an error if he or she fails to reach the same conclusion that would be reached by a group of expert observers. Errors can only arise in cases where the correct interpretation is not in dispute. Somewhere between the clear-cut error and the inevitable difference of opinion in interpretation is an arbitrary division defining the limit of professional acceptability4. Errors in judgement must occur in the practice of an art which consists largely in balancing probabilities. Sir William Osler (1849-1919), Aequanimitas, with Other Addresses, Teacher and Student. Unlike physical examination of patients, or findings at surgery or endoscopy, evidence of a radiologic examination remains available for subsequent scrutiny, and can be used for study of observer variation. A 20-year literature review in 2001 suggested the level of error for clinically significant or major error in radiology is in the range 2-20% and varies depending on the radiological investigation5. The issue of error in radiology has been recognised for many years. Studies in the 1940s found that CXRs of patients with suspected tuberculosis were read differently by different observers in 10-20% of cases. In the 1970s, it was found that 71% of lung cancers detected on screening radiographs were visible in retrospect on previous films4,6. The “average” observer has been found to miss 30% of visible lesions on barium enemas4. A 1999 study found that 19% of lung cancers presenting as a nodular lesion on chest x-rays were missed7. Another study identified major disagreement between 2 observers in interpreting x-rays of patients in an emergency department in 5-9% of cases, with an estimated incidence of errors per observer of 3-6%8. A 1997 study using experienced radiologists reporting a collection of normal and abnormal x-rays found an overall 23% error rate when no clinical information was supplied, falling to 20% when clinical details were available9. A recent report suggests a significant major discrepancy rate (13%) between specialist neuroradiology second opinion and primary general radiology opinion10. A recent review found a “real-time” error rate among radiologists in their day-to-day practices averages 3-5%, but also quoted previous research showing that in patients subsequently diagnosed with lung or breast cancer with previous “normal” relevant radiologic studies, retrospective review of the chest radiographs (in the case of lung cancer) or mammogram (in breast cancer cases) identified the lung cancer in as many as 90% and the breast cancer in as many as 75% of cases11. Prolonged attention to a specific area on a radiograph (“visual dwell”) increases both false negative and false positive errors. Reducing the viewing time for CXRs to less than 4 seconds also increases the miss rate4. Comparative studies of other medical non-radiologic fields have found a similar prevalence of inaccuracy in clinical assessment and examination. A Mayo Clinic study of autopsies published in 2000, which compared clinical diagnoses with post-mortem diagnoses, found that in 26% of cases, a major diagnosis was missed clinically11. Common experience in radiology suggests that many errors are of little or no significance to the patient, and some significant errors remain undiscovered. Errors are inevitable, and the concept of necessary fallibility must be accepted. Equally a threshold of competency is required of all professionals involved in the delivery of radiology services.

In tandem with the introduction of PACS and the adoption of an EPR system at St. James’s hospital, there has been a 237% increase in the number of patients being managed through Breast MDT meetings ...

We report the unusual case of an aortic and renal artery dissection diagnosed with abdominal ultrasound. A 53 year-old female hypertensive patient presented with colicky right flank pain. An ultrasound of the abdomen demonstrated a hyperechoic flap in the upper abdominal aorta; a CT aortogram confirmed a type B aortic dissection with extension into the right renal artery. This case highlights the value of abdominal ultrasonography in the assessment of abdominal pain and the varying clinical presentation of aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND:We investigated the knowledge of ionising radiation among medical students and junior doctors in Ireland and assessed whether this knowledge improved with clinical experience.METHODS:A total of 269 subjects completed a questionnaire on the fundamentals of diagnostic imaging and patient doses.RESULTS:Overall knowledge was poor, 99% of subjects underestimated the dose of radiation involved in a barium enema, plain film of abdomen, lumbar spine X-ray and a PET scan. Almost 90% underestimated the dose of a CT abdomen/pelvis. 42% of subjects knew that PET involved ionising radiation while 27% thought that MRI did. There was a significant improvement in understanding after transition to a clinical environment, however, no further development. 1% had attended formal radiation protection courses.CONCLUSION:The knowledge of basic radiological procedures and patient doses was extremely limited. Current undergraduate teaching needs to be expanded and continued post-qualification to improve core understanding and facilitate safe practice.

Background: A national initiative in Ireland in 2000 defined 13 designated Units to provide care for symptomatic breast cancer, and resources, including an ability to develop audit programmes, were provided. In the absence of a national audit of breast cancer outcomes, the aims of this study is to provide a detailed report of one Unit's subsequent experience, in particular comparing process and outcome data with international norms and benchmarks, and to infer on the likely impact of the national initiative.Methods: A 5-year prospective audit of patients presenting to the Symptomatic Breast Clinical from 2001 to 2005 was conducted. All cancer diagnoses were discussed at the Breast Multidisciplinary Conference, and all clinicopathological treatment details and follow-up information were entered by a full-time data manager. Overall survival was calculated using the Kalpan-Meier method.Results: Eight hundred and thirty-nine patients were diagnosed through the clinic, 18(2%) Stage 0, 169 (20%) Stage I, 380 (45%), 91%, 83%, 72%, and 11% survival for Stages 0-IV, respectively, and disease-specific survival of 82%.Conclusions: The process and outcome data are consistent with international benchmarks. These data from one designated centre support the national initiative in Ireland to restructure breast services. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: The development of multidisciplinary team meetings ( MDTMs) for radiology and pathology is a burgeoning area that increasingly impacts on work processes in both of these departments. The aim of this study was to examine work processes and quantify the time demands on radiologists and pathologists associated with MDTM practices at a large teaching hospital. The observations reported in this paper reflect a general trend affecting hospitals and our conclusions will have relevance for others implementing clinical practice guidelines.Methods: For one month, all work related to clinical meetings between pathology and radiology with clinical staff was documented and later analysed.Results: The number of meetings to which pathology and radiology contribute at a large university teaching hospital, ranges from two to eight per day, excluding grand rounds, and amounts to approximately 50 meetings per month for each department. For one month, over 300 h were spent by pathologists and radiologists on 81 meetings, where almost 1000 patients were discussed. For each meeting hour, there were, on average, 2.4 pathology hours and 2 radiology hours spent in preparation. Two to three meetings per week are conducted over a teleconferencing link. Average meeting time is 1 h. Preparation time per meeting ranges from 0.3 to 6 h for pathology, and 0.5 to 4 for radiology. The review process in preparation for meetings improves internal quality standards. Materials produced externally ( for example imaging) can amount to almost 50% of the material to be reviewed on a single patient. The number of meetings per month has increased by 50% over the past two years. Further increase is expected in both the numbers and duration of meetings when scheduling issues are resolved. A changing trend in the management of referred patients with the development of MDTMs and the introduction of teleconferencing was noted.Conclusion: Difficulties are being experienced by pathology and radiology departments participating fully in several multidisciplinary teams. Time spent at meetings, and in preparation for MDTMs is significant. Issues of timing and the coordination of materials to be reviewed are sometimes irreconcilable. The exchange of patient materials with outside institutions is a cause for concern when full data are not made available in a timely fashion. The process of preparation for meetings is having a positive influence on quality, but more resources are needed in pathology and radiology to realise the full benefits of multidisciplinary team working.

Background: This is a study using Evidence Based Practice (EBP) technique to evaluate if non-calcified renal lesions detected with ultrasound, suspected to represent an angiomyolipoma (AML), need a CT to rule out a renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Methods: The secondary and primary literature were searched for all relevant information. This was appraised for validity and strength. The results from the papers with the highest level of evidence were grouped together and analyzed.Results: Three papers in the primary literature constituted the highest level of evidence. In total these three papers examined 220 lesions. The prevalence of AML was 45% in this sample. Overall, hyperechoic non-calcified renal lesions had a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.00), a specificity of 0.43 (95% CI 0.34-0.51), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.58 and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.98 for AMLs. 57.4% of RCCs were hyperechoic to renal parenchyma. Two of the studies found that posterior acoustic shadowing had a sensitivity of 0.34 (95% CI 0.40-0.56) and a specificity of 1.0 (95% CI 1.0-1.0) for AML.Conclusions: From the surprisingly limited evidence available in the literature, it must be concluded that all non-calcified echogenic renal lesions detected with ultrasound need a CT to rule out an RCC.

Pulmonary pseudoaneurysms have been described as an unusual complication of Swan-Ganz catheter placement, tuberculosis, bronchiectasis, aspergillomas, and pulmonary hypertension. Untreated, they may lead to life-threatening hemorrhage. Coil embolization to occlude the pseudoaneurysms is the treatment of choice. This report describes a case in which a pulmonary pseudoaneurysm that likely resulted from the previous use of a Swan-Ganz catheter was identified but in which angiography failed to demonstrate a feeding vessel. The pseudoaneurysm was visible by transthoracic ultrasonography because it was surrounded by consolidated lung, possibly related to hemorrhage. Ultrasonography was used to guide puncture of the pseudoaneurysm, and percutaneous coil embolization was performed subsequently. Subsequent angiography and computed tomography demonstrated successful occlusion of the aneurysm. This case illustrates the utility of percutaneous management of pulmonary pseudoaneurysms in certain cases.

MRCP is a useful tool in the diagnosis of a wide variety of pathologic entities including congenital anomalies, biliary obstruction and stricture, biliary calculi, pancreatitis, neoplasms, and trauma. ERCP and MRCP both have important roles in the management of patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary disease. Knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of each technique is needed to determine the appropriate work-up of patients with these pathologies.