Performance of single-use syringe versus multi-use MR contrast injectors: a prospective comparative study

The goal of this study was to compare performance parameters of a single-use syringe and a multi-use MR contrast injector. We compared preparation time, cost for disposables and volumes of contrast material used for a single-use (SI) and a multi-use (MI) MR contrast injector in a prospective cross-over trial. During the first study period all consecutive patients eligible for dynamic MR on two systems were included during a period of 20 working days. After 10 days, the injector was switched. Radiographer satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire. Contrast usage and waste on system MI was optimised by extra instructions for our radiographers and measured during the second study period of 10 consecutive working days. A total of 202 and 163 patients for systems SI and MI were included, respectively. Average preparation time was 4:55 min for SI and 2:24 min for MI (p < 0.05). Contrast waste for SI was 13% using 7.5 ml syringes. Contrast waste for MI was 5% for 7.5 ml containers. Costs for disposables were lower for MI if more than 5 patients per day were injected. Radiographer satisfaction was higher for MI (4.7 versus 2.8 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.05). The multi-use MR contrast injector led to higher radiographer satisfaction, shorter preparation time, and lower cost if more than 5 patients were injected per day. In addition, cheaper contrast containers of 15 or 30 ml could be used for the first patients if more than 2 or more than 4 injections are performed per day, potentially leading to lower contrast waste.

EAU-ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer-an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees†

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.

DESIGN

A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.

SETTING

Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.

PARTICIPANTS

The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.

Medical students' perspective on training in anatomy

Gaining sufficient knowledge of anatomy is an important part of medical education. Factors that influence how well students learn anatomical structures include available sources, learning time and study assistance. This study explores the attitude of medical students with regard to studying anatomy and evaluates possibilities for improvement of training in anatomy. Twenty medical students participated in a focus group meeting. Based on this focus group, an online survey consisting of 27 questions was developed and distributed amongst medical students of Maastricht University, the Netherlands. A total of 495 medical students (both Bachelor and Master level) participated in this survey. Master students found studying anatomy less attractive than Bachelor students (36.8% of the Master students vs. 47.9% of the Bachelor students (p=.024)). Although most students responded that they thought it is important to study anatomy, 48% of all students studied anatomy less than 10h per study block of 8 weeks. Only 47.9% of the students rated their knowledge of anatomy as adequate. Students suggested that three-dimensional techniques would help improve their knowledge of anatomy. Therefore investing in three-dimensional tools could prove beneficial in the future.

Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project

Purpose

To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT).

Methods

An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results.

Results

mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers.

Conclusions

The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00345-016-1932-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.