alysis.

• Deep learning using ResNet50 can yield a high accuracy for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral fracture on CT. • The per-slice diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.90, 0.79, and 85% in deep learning using ResNet50 analysis. • The slices combined with per-patient diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.95, 0.80, and 88% in deep learning using ResNet50 analysis.

To evaluate the optic nerve and CSF in the optic nerve sheath as imaging markers of dysthyroid optic neuropathy (DON).

In this single-centre retrospective study, orbital images of 30 consecutive participants (54 orbits) with DON, 30 patients (60 orbits) with thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO) without DON, and 19 healthy controls (HCs; 38 orbits) were analysed. Ipatasertib cell line The diameter and cross-sectional area of the optic nerve and its sheath, water fraction of the optic nerve, and volume of the fluid in the optic nerve sheath were measured and compared. The associations between MR parameters and clinical measures were assessed using correlation analysis.

The diameter and water fraction of the optic nerve (3 mm and 6 mm behind the eyeball), optic nerve subarachnoid space (ONSS) (3 mm and 6 mm behind the eyeball), and subarachnoid fluid volume in the optic nerve sheath were significantly greater in the DON group than in the TAO group (p < 0.01) or HC group (p < 0.01). ROC analysis showed that ONSS 3 mm beThe water fraction of the optic nerve and optic nerve subarachnoid space (ONSS) are greater in patients with dysthyroid optic neuropathy (DON) than in patients with thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO) without DON. • The optic nerve and the cerebrospinal fluid in the optic nerve sheath measures are associated with visual dysfunction. • The water fraction of the optic nerve and ONSS may be promising imaging markers for diagnosing DON.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of MRI-detected extramural vascular invasion (mrEMVI) and mrEMVI after neoadjuvant therapy (ymrEMVI) in rectal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out up to June 2020. Studies that evaluated mrEMVI, used treatment with neoadjuvant therapy, and reported survival were included. The time-to-event outcomes (OS and DFS rates) are expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). If the HR was not reported in the study, it was calculated from the survival curve using methods according to Parmar’s recommendation. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

A total of 2237 patients from 11 studies were included, and the pooled analysis of the overall results from eight studies showed that patients who were mrEMVI positive at baseline hade an early assessment of patient prognosis.

• Extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) is a prognostic factor for rectal cancer. • MRI can be used to evaluate EMVI status before (mrEMVI) and after neoadjuvant therapy (ymrEMVI). • The evaluation of mrEMVI and ymrEMVI in neoadjuvant therapy would provide an early assessment of patient prognosis.

To determine whether synovitis graded by radiologists using hybrid quantitative double-echo in steady-state (qDESS) images can be utilized as a non-contrast approach to assess synovitis in the knee, compared against the reference standard of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI).

Twenty-two knees (11 subjects) with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) were scanned using CE-MRI, qDESS with a high diffusion weighting (qDESS

), and qDESS with a low diffusion weighting (qDESS

). Four radiologists graded the overall impression of synovitis, their diagnostic confidence, and regional grading of synovitis severity at four sites (suprapatellar pouch, intercondylar notch, and medial and lateral peripatellar recesses) in the knee using a 4-point scale. Agreement between CE-MRI and qDESS, inter-rater agreement, and intra-rater agreement were assessed using a linearly weighted Gwet’s AC2.

Good agreement was seen between CE-MRI and both qDESS

(AC2 = 0.74) and qDESS

(AC2 = 0.66) for the overall impression of synovitiimation of severity. Preliminary results also found that qDESS

shows good inter- and intra-rater agreement for the depiction of synovitis, particularly for readers experienced with the sequence.

The use of the quantitative double-echo in steady-state (qDESS) sequence for synovitis assessment does not require the use of a gadolinium-based contrast agent. Preliminary results found that low diffusion-weighted qDESS (qDESSLow) shows good agreement to contrast-enhanced MRI for characterization of the severity of synovitis, with a relative bias towards underestimation of severity. Preliminary results also found that qDESSLow shows good inter- and intra-rater agreement for the depiction of synovitis, particularly for readers experienced with the sequence.

To compare 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (CDCT, typically 7-8 mSv) regarding final diagnosis and patient disposition following equivocal CT results in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis.

In total, 3074 patients of 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 women) from 20 hospitals were randomized to undergo contrast-enhanced 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. One hundred sixty-one radiologists prospectively rated the likelihood of appendicitis in a Likert scale (i.e., grades 1-5). The final diagnosis was based on CT image, surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. Post hoc analysis was performed for final diagnosis, surgical procedure, and delay in patient management following equivocal results (i.e., grade 3).

The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups were comparable for final diagnosis following equivocal results, including confirmed appendicitis (1.2% [18 patients] vs. 1.2% [19], p > 0.99), negative appendectomy (0.1% [2] vs. 0.3% [4], p = 0.53), anps were comparable for the need for appendectomy (1.4% vs. 1.5%, p > 0.99), need for additional imaging tests (0.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.35), and delay in patient management, following equivocal CT results.

0.99), need for additional imaging tests (0.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.35), and delay in patient management, following equivocal CT results.