SummaryBackgroundMagnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound are used to image Crohn's disease, but their comparative accuracy for assessing disease extent and activity is not known with certainty. Therefore, we did a multicentre trial to address this issue.MethodsWe recruited patients from eight UK hospitals. Eligible patients were 16 years or older, with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease or with established disease and suspected relapse. Consecutive patients had MRE and ultrasound in addition to standard investigations. Discrepancy between MRE and ultrasound for the presence of small bowel disease triggered an additional investigation, if not already available. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for small bowel disease extent (correct identification and segmental localisation) against a construct reference standard (panel diagnosis). This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN03982913, and has been completed.Findings284 patients completed the trial (133 in the newly diagnosed group, 151 in the relapse group). Based on the reference standard, 233 (82%) patients had small bowel Crohn's disease. The sensitivity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (80% [95% CI 72–86]) and presence (97% [91–99]) were significantly greater than that of ultrasound (70% [62–78] for disease extent, 92% [84–96] for disease presence); a 10% (95% CI 1–18; p=0·027) difference for extent, and 5% (1–9; p=0·025) difference for presence. The specificity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (95% [85–98]) was significantly greater than that of ultrasound (81% [64–91]); a difference of 14% (1–27; p=0·039). The specificity for small bowel disease presence was 96% (95% CI 86–99) with MRE and 84% (65–94) with ultrasound (difference 12% [0–25]; p=0·054). There were no serious adverse events.InterpretationBoth MRE and ultrasound have high sensitivity for detecting small bowel disease presence and both are valid first-line investigations, and viable alternatives to ileocolonoscopy. However, in a national health service setting, MRE is generally the preferred radiological investigation when available because its sensitivity and specificity exceed ultrasound significantly.FundingNational Institute of Health and Research Health Technology Assessment.

Background and Aims The simplified magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) index (sMARIA), London and “extended” London scoring systems are widely used in Crohn’s disease (CD) to assess disease activity, although validation studies have usually been single centre, retrospective and/or used few readers. Here, we evaluated these MRE indices within a prospective multicentre, multireader diagnostic accuracy trial. Methods A subset of participants (newly diagnosed or suspected of relapse) recruited to the METRIC trial with available terminal ileal (TI) biopsies was included. Using pre-specified thresholds, the sensitivity and specificity of sMARIA, London and “extended” London scores for active and severe (sMARIA) TI CD were calculated using different thresholds for the histological activity index (HAI). Results We studied 111 patients (median 29 years, interquartile range 21-41, 75 newly diagnosed, 36 suspected relapse) from 7 centres, of whom 22 had no active TI CD (HAI=0), 39 mild (HAI=1), 13 moderate (HAI=2), and 37 severe CD activity (HAI=3). In total, 26 radiologists prospectively scored MRE datasets as per their usual clinical practice. Sensitivity and specificity for active disease (HAI>0) were 83% (95% confidence interval 74-90%) and 41% (23-61%) for sMARIA, 76% (67-84%) and 64% (43-80%) for the London score, and 81% (72-88%) and 41% (23-61%) for the “extended” London score, respectively. The sMARIA had 84% (69-92%) sensitivity and 53% (41-64%) specificity for severe CD. Conclusions When tested at their proposed cut-offs in a real-world setting, sMARIA, London and “extended” London indices achieve high sensitivity for active TI disease against a histological reference standard, but specificity is low.

IntroductionPenile metastases are an extremely rare occurrence, and most primary malignancies are located in the urinary bladder, prostate, rectum, and rectosigmoid. Although very few cases of penile metastases have been reported, those of lung cancer as the primary tumor are very rare. Among the latter, squamous cell carcinomas constitute the majority, whereas adenocarcinomas are almost exceptions. To the best of our knowledge, only two cases have been reported.Case presentationWe report the case of a 59-year-old Greek man who presented with persistent cough and chest pain that had started one month prior to a medical appointment. A physical examination, complete laboratory work-up, computed tomography scanning (of the chest, brain, and abdomen), pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, penile ultrasonography, bone scanning, and histological analyses were conducted. Afterward, a lung adenocarcinoma metastatic to the bones, brain, adrenals, lymph nodes, and penis was diagnosed. The primary lesion was a mass of 4cm in diameter in the apical segment of the lower lobe of the right lung. The patient was treated with bone and brain radiotherapy and various cycles of first- and second-line chemotherapy, and partial response was achieved five months after the initial appointment.ConclusionsAlthough these metastatic sites are well known to occur from a primary pulmonary malignancy, penile metastasis is extremely rare. Its identification requires prompt awareness by the physician despite the dismal prognosis. Furthermore, since the penis usually is omitted from the physical examination and lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, more penile metastases may be detected in the future, making early detection and appropriate management of great importance.

CTC can accurately assess the key morphological features for the selection of patients with early colonic neoplasia for full-thickness laparo-endoscopic excision.

GASTROINTESTINAL IMAGINGS creening for early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) and premalignant polyps reduces mortality by approximately 15% when testing feces for blood (the most common approach internationally) (1,2). In individuals who test positive for fecal blood (by guaiac or immunochemical methods), approximately 50% will have underlying colonic neoplasia (3). A positive fecal test result therefore requires further investigation, usually via colonoscopy, with CT colonography (CTC) used when colonoscopy is not possible (4). In CTC, multidetector CT scanners are used to produce twodimensional and three-dimensional (3D) images of the cleansed gas-distended colon. CTC has high sensitivity in the detection of CRC and large polyps (5), and Background: Most radiologists reporting CT colonography (CTC) do not undergo compulsory performance accreditation, potentially lowering diagnostic sensitivity. Purpose: To determine whether 1-day individualized training in CTC reporting improves diagnostic sensitivity of experienced radiologists for 6-mm or larger lesions, the durability of any improvement, and any associated factors. Materials and Methods: This prospective, multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales between April 2017 and January 2020. CTC services were cluster randomized into intervention (1-day training plus feedback) or control (no training or feedback) arms. Radiologists in the intervention arm attended a 1-day workshop focusing on CTC reporting pitfalls with individualized feedback. Radiologists in the control group received no training.Sensitivity for 6-mm or larger lesions was tested at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months thereafter via interpretation of 10 CTC scans at each time point. The primary outcome was the mean difference in per-lesion sensitivity between arms at 1 month, analyzed using multilevel regression after adjustment for baseline sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included per-lesion sensitivity at 6-and 12-month follow-up, sensitivity for flat neoplasia, and effect of prior CTC experience.Results: A total of 69 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention (31 clusters, 80 radiologists) or control (38 clusters, 59 radiologists) arm. Radiologists were experienced (median, 500-999 CTC scans interpreted) and reported CTC scans routinely (median, 151-200 scans per year). One-month sensitivity improved after intervention (66.4% [659 of 992]) compared with sensitivity in the control group (42.