Every Scientific Session at ECR 2015 includes a vote for the best paper of the session. Below are all of the winners for Saturday, March 7. Congratulations to all of the winners!
Winner: SS 1402 – B-0920 Paola Clauser
Joint Winner: SS 1406 – B-0930 Jamal Guenoun
Joint Winner: SS 1406 – B-0938 Philipp M. Kazmierczak
Joint Winner: SS 1410 – B-0941 Freek de Bruin
Joint Winner: SS 1410 – B-0947 Guillaume Lefebvre
Winner: SS 1411 – B-0958 & B-0959 Hanne Christensen
Winner: SS 1416 – B-0967 Francesco Giganti
Winner: SS 1401 – B-0978 Francesco Carbonetti
Joint Winner: SS 1404 – B-0987 Elodie Gyssels
Joint Winner: SS 1404 – B-0990 Ilaria Merli
Joint Winner: SS 1404 – B-0991 Maria T.A. Buzan
Winner: SS 1409 – B-0993 Pierleone Lucatelli
Winner: SS 1407 – B-1009 Andreas M. Hötker
Winner: SS 1414 – B-1015 Martin W. Kusk
Every Scientific Session at ECR 2015 includes a vote for the best paper of the session. Below are all of the winners for Friday, March 6. Congratulations to all of the winners!
Winner: SS 1001 – B-0841 Elisa Guidi
Joint Winner: SS 1002 – B-0759 Barbara Bennani-Baiti
Joint Winner: SS 1002 – B-0767 Claudio Spick
Winner: SS 1003a – B-0792 Gert Jan Pelgrim
Winner: SS 1003b – B-0905 Thula C. Walter
Winner: SS 1004 – B-0852 Martine Remy-Jardin
Winner: SS 1008 – B-0882 Anuradha Chandramohan
Winner: SS 1009 – B-0862 Hester J. Scheffer
Joint Winner: SS 1010a – B-0801 Melissa N. Ong
Joint Winner: SS 1010a – B-0809 Anna Palmisano
Joint Winner: SS 1012 – B-0889 Marco Salsano
Joint Winner: SS 1012 – B-0895 Frederica Papadopoulou
Winner: SS 1010b – B-0916 Vasiliki Perlepe
Winner: SS 1011 – B-0818 Arturs Balodis
Winner: SS 1013 – B-0782 Marco Das
Winner: SS 1014 – B-0873 Lee R. O’Hora
Winner: SS 1015 – B-0768 Andreas Gutzeit
Winner: SS 1016 – B-0831 Salvatore Donatiello
Every Scientific Session at ECR 2015 includes a vote for the best paper of the session. Below are all of the winners for Thursday, March 5. Congratulations to all of the winners!
Winner: SS 601a – B-0426 Christian Grieser
Winner: SS 602 – B-0444 Ruxandra-Iulia Milos
Winner: SS 605 – B-0455 Maria Twomey
1st Winner: SS 601b – B-0460 Evelien F.W. Gryspeerdt
2nd Winner: SS 601b – B-0464 Sophie Lombardi
Winner: SS 603a – B-0468 Giulia Benedetti
Winner: SS 615 – B-0482 Juana María Plasencia Martínez
Winner: SS 610a – B-0487 Silvia Mariani
1st Winner: SS 611 – B-0507 Judith Gadde
2nd Winner: SS 611 – B-0509 Chi Long Ho
Winner: SS 616 – B-0518 Alessandra Casiraghi
Winner: SS 612 – B-0526 Carola V. Pul
Winner: SS 604 – B-0537 Kaman Chung
Winner: SS 609 – B-0548 Aglaé Velasco
Winner: SS 607a – B-0559 Borna K. Barth
Winner: SS 610b – B-0567 Ruud H.H. Wellenberg
Winner: SS 608 – B-0583 Patrick Asbach
1st Winner: SS 607b – B-0590 Jung Myung Kim
2nd Winner: SS 607b – B-0591 Tümay Bekci
Winner: SS 603b – B-0603 Marcello Petrini
Winner: SS 701a – B-0607 Zsofia D. Drobni
1st Winner: SS 702 – B-0619 Matthias Dietzel
2nd Winner: SS 702 – B-0624 Hildebrand Dijkstra
Winner: SS 715 – B-0630 Vladimir Aznaurov
Winner: SS 710 – B-0646 Frank W. Roemer
Winner: SS 711 – B-0658 Aram S. Tonoyan
Winner: SS 716 – B-0666 Souhail Bennani
Winner: SS 713 – B-0680 Andreas Stratis
Winner: SS 704 – B-0690 Jong Hyuk Lee
Winner: SS 709a – B-0701 Christina Loberg
Winner: SS 707 – B-0706 Derya Yakar
1st Winner: SS 709b – B-0721 Vanessa Acosta Ruiz
2nd Winner: SS 709b – B-0723 Giovanni Mauri
1st Winner: SS 708 – B-0728 Stefan M. Niehues
2nd Winner: SS 708 – B-0730 Moritz H. Albrecht
Winner: SS 701b – B-0743 Martina Pancot
Winner: SS 703 – B-0746 Paul Stolzmann
Every Scientific Session at ECR 2015 includes a vote for the best paper of the session. Below are all of the winners for Wednesday, March 4 (including a tie for session SS 217). Congratulations to all of the winners!
SS 201a – B-0009 Jeong Min Lee
SS 202a – B-0017 Eimear A. Joyce
SS 206 – B-0029 Johannes Grueneisen
SS 201b – B-0034 Aman Wadhwani
SS 203a – B-0055 Michelle C. Williams
SS 215 – B-0061 Alvaro M. Morales Vargas
SS 210 – B-0067 David J. Wilson
SS 211a – B-0077 Martin Lillholm
SS 216 – B-0097 Ali Sabri
SS 213 – B-0107 Sonja Gordic
SS 202b – B-0113 Marcus Lobbes
SS 209 – B-0121 Alessandro Posa
SS 207 – B-0140 Valeria Vinci
SS 214 – B-0145 Susanne H. Kivistö
SS 208 – B-0154 Karolina Markiet
SS 212 – B-0168 Wieying Kuo
SS 203b – B-0174 Francesco Laffranchi
SS 217 – B-0193 Claudia Frellesen
SS 217 – B-0194 Aman Wadhwani
SS 211b – B-0203 Desirée H.J.L. Koopmanschap
SS 302a – B-0210 Amro N.J. Masarwah
SS 301a – B-0219 Ankur Arora
SS 302b – B-0231 Nuala A. Healy
SS 305 – B-0244 Esther E. Bron
SS 301b – B-0258 Jens Maier
SS 303a – B-0266 Mihály Károlyi
SS 315 – B-0278 Michael Rasper
SS 310 – B-0282 Georgina M. Allen
SS 311a – B-0299 M. Ihab S. Reda
SS 316 – B-0314 Andrea Contegiacomo
SS 313 – B-0315 David J. Lurie
SS 304 – B-0329 Wouter J. Heerink
SS 309 – B-0347 Francesco Arrigoni
SS 307 – B-0356 Matthias Haas
SS 314 – B-0358 Erica Buttigieg
SS 308 – B-0377 Hillel S. Maresky
SS 312 – B-0385 Charlotte M. Nusman
SS 303b – B-0394 Thomas Elgeti
SS 317 – B-0408 Max E.R. Marsden
SS 311b – B-0418 Maria Correia de Verdier
B-0948 Computed tomography of the bowel: a prospective comparison study between four techniques
M. Revelli, F. Paparo, L. Bacigalupo, A. Garlaschi, L. Cevasco, E. Biscaldi, G. Rollandi | Monday, March 11, 14:00 – 15:30 / Room E2
Purpose: Our purposes were to compare the grade of bowel distension obtained with four different CT techniques dedicated for examination of small intestine (CT-enteroclysis and CT-enterography), colon (CT with water enema), or both (CT-enterography with water enema) and to assess patient tolerance towards each protocol.
Methods and Materials: We recruited four groups of 30 patients. Each group corresponded to a specific CT technique, for a total of 120 consecutive patients (65 male, 55 female; mean age 51.09±13.36 years). CT studies were evaluated in consensus by two gastrointestinal-dedicated radiologists who performed quantitative and qualitative analysis of bowel distension. Presence and type of adverse effects were recorded.
Results: CT-enteroclysis provided the best distension of jejunal loops (median diameter 27mm; range 17-32mm) compared with all other techniques (p<0.0001). Frequency of patients with an adequate distension of the terminal ileum was not significantly different among the four groups (p=0.0608). At both quantitative and qualitative analysis CT with water enema and CT-enterography with water enema determined a greater and more consistent luminal filling of the large intestine compared with the one provided by both CT-enteroclysis and CT-enterography (p<0.0001 for all colonic segments). Adverse effects were more frequent in patients from the CT-enteroclysis group (p<0.0028).
Conclusion: CT-enteroclysis allows an optimal distension of jejunal loops, but it is the most uncomfortable CT protocol. When performing CT with water enema, an adequate retrograde distension of the terminal ileum was provided in a high percentage of patients. CT-enterography with water enema provides a simultaneous optimal distension of both small and large bowel.
B-0576 Imaging features of acinar cell cystadenoma: can we differentiate them from branch duct IPMNs?
C. Delavaud, G. D’Assignies, J. Cros, P. Ruszniewski, P. Hammel, A. Couvelard, V. Vilgrain, M.-P. Vullierme
Purpose: Acinar cystic cystadenoma (ACC) of the pancreas is a rare benign entity first described in 2002, defined by histological criteria. Radiographic appearance had almost not been described so far. Most of the patients underwent surgical resection under the preoperative diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. The aims of this study are to define imaging diagnostic criteria of ACC based on radiopathological confrontation and to compare clinical, biological and imaging data between patients with ACC and with branch ducts IPMN.
Methods and Materials: All patients with ACC who underwent pancreatic surgery for suspicion of IPMN and the 20 last patients with histologically proven branch ducts IPMN were retrospectively included. Clinical and biological information were collected from the medical reports. Radiological and histological documents were reviewed in order to define imaging diagnostic criteria of ACC. Data were compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.
Results: ACC was symptomatic in all but one patient. There were no statistical difference between ACC and IPMN group with regard to clinical and biological data. Combination of four radiological criteria allowed differentiating ACC from IPMN: cyst calcification, presence of more than 5 cysts, clustered peripheral small cyst, and absence of communication with main pancreatic duct. Sensibility and specificity were, respectively, 75 and 100 % with combination of at least three of these criteria.
Conclusion: ACC is a rare benign pancreatic tumour with specific imaging features despite some similarities with IPMN. Recognition of this entity may help us to propose the diagnosis and prevent extensive surgery.
B-0188 Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI can assess vascularity within pseudarthrotic clefts and predicts good clinical outcome
M.-A. Weber, K. Bloess, I. Burkholder, D. Bender, G. Schmidmaier, H.-U. Kauczor, O. Schoierer | Thursday, March 7, 14:00 – 15:30 / Room E1
Purpose: To prospectively evaluate whether dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI can assess vascularity within pseudarthrotic clefts and predicts clinical outcome better than the clinical non-union scoring system (NUSS).
Methods and Materials: Sixty-four patients (mean age, 49.3 years) with non-union of an extremity fracture in computed-tomography received 3-Tesla MRI including DCE (coronal T1-weighted fat-saturated VIBE, TR/TE=3.76/1.35ms, 17 measurements, 2 mm slice thickness) after 0.1mmol/kg body-weight of gadoterat. We assessed vascularity within the pseudarthrotic cleft using a region-of-interest analysis. Signal intensity curves were subdivided into those with more intense contrast-agent uptake in the pseudarthrotic cleft than in normal adjacent muscle tissue (vascularised non-union) and those with similar or less uptake. The pharmacokinetic parameters of the Tofts model (Ktrans, Kep, iAUC, Ve) were correlated to the clinical outcome at one-year follow-up (n=37).
Results: Despite inserted osteosynthesis material, DCE parameters could be evaluated in n=60 at first visit. Sensitivity/specificity of vascularised non-unions as indicator of good clinical outcome was 77.3%/46.7% compared to 95.5%/26.7% using NUSS. Logistic regression revealed non-significant impact of NUSS on clinical outcome (p=0.27, odds ratio=0.97). At first examination, median iAUC (initial area under the enhancement curve) was 24.13 in patients with good outcome compared with 10.96 in non-responders (p=0.032), while Ktrans, Kep, and Ve were not significantly different. Using a receiver operating characteristic analysis, sensitivity/specificity of iAUC at the optimal cut-off value of 17.5 to predict outcome was 68.2%/76.9%. All pharmacokinetic parameters did not change significantly at the one-year control (n=18).
Conclusion: DCE MRI can assess vascularity in pseudarthrotic clefts. A vascularised non-union indicates good clinical outcome.
B-0406 Increased regional grey matter volume in Parkinson’s disease patients with excessive daytime sleepiness: an MRI study
L.C. Tzarouchi, M. Chondrogiorgi, A. Zikou, P. Kosta, M.I. Argyropoulou, S. Konitsiotis | Friday, March 8, 14:00 – 15:30 / Room B
Purpose: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is an important non-motor symptom of Parkinson’s disease (PD). The underlying neuropathological mechanism accounting for EDS is not well understood. The purpose of the present study was to determine regional grey matter (GM) volume changes in PD patients with EDS.
Methods and Materials: Seventeen PD patients with EDS (Epworth Sleepiness Scale ESS ≥ 12) (EDS-PD), 17 age and disease duration-matched PD patients (Epworth Sleepiness Scale ESS ≤ 6) and 17 age-matched healthy controls were enrolled in the study. The χ2 and Student’s t tests were used to test for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between groups. Differences in GM volume between groups were evaluated by applying the voxel-based morphometry (VBM) method.
Results: Total calculated levodopa equivalent dose was higher in EDS-PD when compared to PD patients (p<0.05). Comparison of EDS-PD with PD patients and controls showed increased GM volume bilaterally in the hippocampus, the parahippocampal gyrus, the fusiform gyrus and in cortical areas in the temporal, frontal and parietal lobes (p<0.001).
Conclusion: EDS-PD patients present increased regional GM volume in the mesolimbic/mesocortical dopamine pathway, which is activated during sleep. Drug-induced GM volume increase through a process of neuronal plasticity may represent the underlying mechanism.
B-0323 Apparent diffusion coefficient for evaluating early tumour response to neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: correlation with histopathology. Preliminary results
M. Iacobucci, M. Miccò, A.L. Valentini, B. Gui, A.M. De Gaetano, L. Bonomo | Friday, March 8, 10:30 – 12:00 / Room F1
Purpose: To evaluate diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) in predicting response to neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Cervical lesions ADC were correlated with post-surgical histopathology.
Methods and Materials: 24 women (FIGO>IB Bulky) underwent MRI and DWI prior to, after 2 weeks and at the end of nCRT, using 1.5 T scanner. Cervical lesion volume and ADC were measured at each assessment. Radical hysterectomy was performed 4 weeks after MRI. Treatment response was determined based on histopathology and was classified as complete response (CR), residual (RD) or stable disease (SD). Mean ADCs (mADC), ADC increase and volume reduction (VR) rates were compared using histopathology as reference standard
Results: According to histology, 13/24 (54%) had CR, 11/24 (46%) had RD <1 cm. 2 patients presented SD. Before therapy, in the study population mADC was 0.96±0.06×10-³ mm²/s but it was lower in SD (0.76±0.1×10-³ mm²/s). After 2 weeks of nCRT, mADC correlated with tumour response: a) in CR with 23 % percent change (1.20±0.02×10-³ mm²/s vs 0.98±0.06×10-³ mm²/s; P<0.001); b) in RD with 10 % percent change (1.05±0.02×10-³ mm²/s vs 0.93±0.06×10-³ mm²/s; P<0.001). Tumour volume decreased in CR and RD with reduction rate of 48 % and 46 %, respectively. At the end of CRT, no significant differences on ADC between CR and RD (mADC 1.20±0.07×10-³ mm²/s vs 1.17±0.06×10-³ mm²/s; P>1) were observed. All CR had local inflammation at histology.
Conclusion: ADC is early indicator of tumour response in patients with advanced cervical cancer.
B-0297 Non-solid, part-solid or solid? Classification of pulmonary nodules in thoracic CT by radiologists and a computer-aided diagnosis system
C. Jacobs, E.M. van Rikxoort, J.-M. Kuhnigk, E.T. Scholten, P.A. de Jong, C. Schaefer-Prokop, M. Prokop, B. van Ginneken | Friday, March 8, 10:30 – 12:00 / Room D1
Purpose: Classifying pulmonary nodules into solid, part-solid and non-solid is crucial for patient management. A computer algorithm is compared to a radiologist on a large data set obtained from a multi-center lung cancer screening trial.
Methods and Materials: Low-dose chest CT scans (16×0.75mm, 120-140 kVp, 30 mAs) with part-solid, non-solid, and solid nodules with a diameter between 7 and 30 mm were randomly selected from two sites participating in the Dutch-Belgian NELSON lung cancer screening trial. The set contained 137 scans, including 50 part-solid, 50 non-solid and 52 solid nodules. The nodule-type recorded in the screening database was used as a reference standard. An automated classification system for characterization of nodules was designed using morphometric features. The accuracy of the computer algorithm was evaluated in three ways: classifying nodules (1) as solid or subsolid, (2) as solid, part-solid or non-solid, and, (3) for the subsolid lesions only, as part-solid or non-solid. An experienced thoracic radiologist independently performed the same classification.
Results: The accuracy of the automated system to differentiate between solid and subsolid nodules was 0.88, compared to 0.95 for the radiologist. The computer classified the nodules as solid, part-solid or non-solid with an accuracy of 0.72 versus 0.80 for the radiologist. The software reached an accuracy of 0.71 in differentiating part-solid from non-solid nodules, where the radiologist had an accuracy of 0.77.
Conclusion: A novel automated characterization tool for pulmonary nodules shows promising performance and could aid radiologists in selecting the appropriate workup for pulmonary nodules.