No abstract

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Positron emission tomography with [18]F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG-PET/CT) has been advocated as the method of choice for lymphoma staging, since it enables whole-body analysis with high sensitivity for detection of affected areas and because it combines capacities for anatomical and functional assessment. With technological advances, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as an alternative to FDG-PET/CT. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI (WB-MRI) with FDG-PET/CT for lymphoma staging. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review on diagnostic test accuracy studies conducted at a public university. METHODS: The Medline, Scopus, Embase and Lilacs databases were searched for studies published up to September 2013 that compared WB-MRI and FDG-PET/CT for lymphoma staging. The reference lists of included studies were checked for any relevant additional citations. RESULTS: Six studies that evaluated the initial lymphoma staging in 116 patients were included. WB-MRI and FDG-PET/CT agreed in 90.5% of the cases (κ = 0.871; P < 0.0001). In most of the studies, when there was disagreement between the methods, WB-MRI overstaged in relation to FDG-PET/CT. The sensitivity of WB-MRI and FDG-PET/CT, in comparison with the clinical-radiological standard, ranged from 59 to 100% and from 63 to 100% respectively. CONCLUSION: WB-MRI is a highly sensitive method for initial lymphoma staging. It has excellent agreement with FDG-PET/CT and is a great alternative for managing lymphoma patients, without using ionizing radiation or an intravenous contrast agent.

Whole-body MRI has excellent sensitivity for staging of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents. It can thus be considered an alternative for this purpose, particularly because it does not expose patients to ionizing radiation.

OBJECTIVES:1) To verify clinical signs correlated with appropriate cranial computed tomography scan indications and changes in the therapeutic approach in pediatric minor head trauma scenarios. 2) To estimate the radiation exposure of computed tomography scans with low dose protocols in the context of trauma and the additional associated risk.METHODS:Investigators reviewed the medical records of all children with minor head trauma, which was defined as a Glasgow coma scale ≥13 at the time of admission to the emergency room, who underwent computed tomography scans during the years of 2013 and 2014. A change in the therapeutic approach was defined as a neurosurgical intervention performed within 30 days, hospitalization, >12 hours of observation, or neuro-specialist evaluation.RESULTS:Of the 1006 children evaluated, 101 showed some abnormality on head computed tomography scans, including 49 who were hospitalized, 16 who remained under observation and 36 who were dismissed. No patient underwent neurosurgery. No statistically significant relationship was observed between patient age, time between trauma and admission, or signs/symptoms related to trauma and abnormal imaging results. A statistically significant relationship between abnormal image results and a fall higher than 1.0 meter was observed (p=0.044). The mean effective dose was 2.0 mSv (0.1 to 6.8 mSv), corresponding to an estimated additional cancer risk of 0.05%.CONCLUSION:A computed tomography scan after minor head injury in pediatric patients did not show clinically relevant abnormalities that could lead to neurosurgical indications. Patients who fell more than 1.0 m were more likely to have changes in imaging tests, although these changes did not require neurosurgical intervention; therefore, the use of computed tomography scans may be questioned in this group. The results support the trend of more careful indications for cranial computed tomography scans for children with minor head trauma.

ObjectiveTo assess the non-radiologist physicians' knowledge on the use of ionizing radiation in imaging.Materials and MethodsCross-sectional study utilizing an anonymous questionnaire responded by physicians in clinical and surgical specialties, divided into two parts as follows: one including questions about the physicians' characteristics, frequency of imaging studies requests and participation in professional updating events, and another part including multiple choice questions approaching general knowledge about radiation, optimization principles and radioprotection.ResultsFrom a total of 309 questionnaires, 120 (38.8%) were responded, 50% by physicians in surgical specialties and 50% in clinical specialties; respectively 45% and 2.5% of physicians responded that magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography use ionizing radiation. Overall, the average grade was higher for surgical specialists with no significant difference, except for the question about exposure in pregnant women (p = 0.047). Physicians who are professionally updated, particularly those attending clinical meetings (p = 0.050) and participating in teaching activities (p = 0.047), showed statistically superior knowledge about ionizing radiation as compared with others.ConclusionThe non-radiologist physicians' knowledge is heterogeneous and in some points needs to be improved. Multidisciplinary clinical meetings and teaching activities are important ways to disseminate information on the subject.