Review – The Unofficial Guide to Radiology: 100 Practice Chest X-Rays with Full Colour Annotations and Full X-Ray Reports

Tom Campion

The Unofficial Guide to Radiology won the BIR/Philips

Trainee award for Excellence in 2015.   Tom Campion, radiology trainee at Bart’s Hospital, London and Valandis Kostas, Senior Radiographer from Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital  reflect on the latest addition to the series which focuses on chest x-ray interpretation and is designed to support professionals and students.

Valandis KostasA follow-up to the Unofficial Guide to Radiology, and part of the Unofficial Guide to Medicine series, this new book The Unofficial Guide to Radiology: 100 Practice Chest X-rays, with full colour annotations and full X-ray reports  has at its heart the inspiring idea that the development of educational resources should be driven by those who use them. The result is a fantastic resource for reporting radiographers, medical students, junior doctors in any specialty, providing a comprehensive and practical approach to chest x-ray interpretation.

41Vnk61P4sL._SX352_BO1,204,203,200_Right from the start, the book’s cover is self-explanatory and is easily perceived to be about chest X-ray interpretations.   The 100 chest X-ray cases are presented in a test-yourself format, with the images and case history presented on one page and the interpretation and report on the next.

The cases are separated in three coloured divisions: Standard (orange), Intermediate (purple) and Advanced (blue). The first page provides the reader with a short clinical indication followed by the associated chest X-ray in high quality, all in one page. The second page then evaluates the technical features, again using a colour code scheme which is then diagrammatically presented on the same chest X-ray, but on a smaller scale. It may be coincidence that the orange, purple and blue technical features can also be perceived as standard, intermediate and advanced technical points to look out for from a radiographer’s perspective. Finally, there is a short but precise summary demonstrating a report of the chest X-ray followed by further management for the patient.

The image quality is excellent in comparison to most other available textbooks, with crisp full-page images allowing the detail of the images to be explored – crucial in the days of PACS when every possible abnormality can be magnified a hundredfold.

Each ‘answer’ page has a consistent format, embedding a sensible interpretation pathway, and a clear layout highlighting both normal and abnormal findings. The consistency, and the detailed and comprehensive annotations, allows the reader to build up an idea of ‘normal’ over the course of the cases, continuously reinforcing important structures to check on every radiograph.

The multidisciplinary approach to development also comes through strongly, with suggested first management steps in response to each radiograph placing the interpretation firmly in the pragmatic clinical world. However, the ‘reporting’ style employed also develops familiarity with the language of radiologists; if this can sometimes seems overly formal or formulaic, it serves a purpose in ensuring that clinicians and radiologists are on the same page.

The clinical cases provided are realistic and are what you expect to find whether in Accident and Emergency and/or outpatient, GP clinics. From pathologies to pneumothoraxes, fractures to line insertions, most scenarios are covered in this book.

Valandis Kostas strongly recommends this book to all grade and advanced radiographers. He observes that the book provides the patient pathway link from clinical presentation to radiology, to treatment and type of follow up imaging required i.e. CT and/or chest clinic referral. The layout enables understanding of the acquired chest x-ray, vital for best practice.

He particularly applauded the section on quality of the chest X-ray, using the similar 10 point image quality check radiographers use in their clearance of X-rays they undertake. Patient I.D, rotation, penetration and inspiration are a few examples. Furthermore, the case layout educates radiographers the importance of these checks to aid image interpretation for diagnosis whilst encouraging learning about chest pathologies. This will eliminate the repetitious perception of the chest X-ray and it will encourage radiographers to maintain high quality chest radiographs for accurate diagnosis and reduce false negatives and false positives.

The clinical details provided in the case vignettes are of a level of detail that surpasses most of those seen in clinical practice; hopefully, the detail provided here will also serve to demonstrate to clinicians who read the book how fundamental these details are, and serve as a resource on helpful requesting as well as interpretation of chest radiographs.

An important area for radiographers and radiologists that is not covered in as much detail is the inadequate chest x-ray, and perhaps the book could be improved by including a few examples of misses/near misses from poor quality radiographs in order to educate readers on when a repeat X-ray is required.

Tom Campion, trainee radiologist  would happily recommend the book to anyone whose job involves X-ray reporting as it delivers a solid foundation in interpretation skills and serves  as both a thoughtfully structured introduction to the beginner and a handy reference to the more experienced.

Both Valandis and Tom felt that the book would make a great app or online tool  in the future.

The Unofficial Guide to Radiology £19.99

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unofficial-Guide-Radiology-Practice-Annotations/dp/1910399019

Images: (Top left) Tom Campion, (top right) Valandis Kostas.

AUTHORS:

by Mohammed Rashid Akhtar MBBS BSc (Hons) FRCR (Author), Na’eem Ahmed MBBS BSc (Author), Nihad Khan MBBS BSc (Author)

EDITORS:

Mark Rodrigues MBChB(Hons) BSc(Hons) FRCR (Editor), Zeshan Qureshi BM BSc (Hons) MSc MRCPCH (Editor)

 

Advertisements

Hats off to Sir Peter Mansfield (1933-2017)

13-sir-peter-mansfield-2003

Sir Peter Mansfield left school with no qualifications to become one of the most eminent scientists in the world of physics. Here, Dr Adrian Thomas pays tribute to the man who lived through World War Two and with dogged determination forged his way in science to become a distinguished and recognised physicist who played a major part in the story of MRI.

 

Sir Peter Mansfield was born on 9 October 1933 in Lambeth in London, and grew up in Camberwell. His mother had worked as a waitress in a Lyons Corner House in the West End of London, and his father first worked as a labourer in the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and then as a gas fitter. Mansfield recounted being sent with other children on a holiday to Kent for disadvantaged London children by the Children’s Country Holiday Fund.

Peter Mansfield was 5 years old when the war broke out in 1939. He remembers standing with his father at the entrance of an air raid shelter watching anti-aircraft shells exploding around German bombers caught in the searchlights. As the Blitz intensified he was evacuated from the dangers of the capital, as were so many other London children. With his brother he was sent to Devon, where he was assigned to Florence and Cecil Rowland who lived in Babbacombe, Torquay. The Rowlands were called Auntie and Uncle, and Mansfield  attended the nearby junior school. Cecil Rowland was a carpenter and joiner by trade, and encouraged Peter to develop his practical skills by giving him a toolbox, and tools were slowly acquired. He obviously obtained some proficiency since with some guidance he made several wooden toys which he was able to sell at an undercover market and a toyshop in Torquay. His life was not without danger even outside London, and in early 1944,whilst out playing, he saw a German twin-engined Fokke-Wulf plane flying at rooftop level. The tail gunner was spraying bullets everywhere, and he rapidly took shelter behind a dry-stone wall.

On his return to London his secondary schooling was at Peckham Central, moving  to the William Penn School in Peckham. Shortly before he left school at 15 he had an interview with a careers adviser. Peter said that he was interested in science, and the adviser responded that since he was unqualified that he should try something less ambitious. He was interested in printing and so took up an apprentice in the Bookbinding Department of Ede and Fisher in Fenchurch Street in the City of London, and whilst there he took evening classes.   Developing an interest in rockets he was offered a position at the Rocket Propulsion Department (RPD) at Westcott, near Aylesbury.

In 1952 he was called up into the Army for his National Service, where he joined the Engineers. The Army allowed him to develop his interest in science. On demobilization he returned to Westcott and completed his A levels. This enabled him to apply for a special honors degree course in physics at Queen Mary College in London. In 1959 he obtained his BSc, and three years later he was awarded his PhD in physics. From 1962 to 1964 he was Research Associate at the Department of Physics at the University of Illinois, and in 1964 was appointed Lecturer at the Department of Physics at the University of Nottingham.

During a sabbatical in Heidelberg in 1972 Mansfield corresponded with his student, Peter Grannell in Nottingham, and became interested in what became MRI, presenting his first paper in 1973 at the First Specialized Colloque Ampère. Mansfield developed a line scanning technique, and this was used to scan the finger of one of one of his early research students, Dr Andrew Maudsley. The scan times required for these finger images varied between 15 and 23 minutes. These were the first images of a live human subject and they were presented to the Medical Research Council, which in 1976 was reviewing the work of various groups including those in Nottingham and Aberdeen.

13-terry-baines-peter-mansfield-and-andrew-maudsley-c1974

In 1977 the team at Nottingham, which included the late Brian Worthington, successfully  produced an image of a wrist. The following year Mansfield presented his first  abdominal image. In 1979 Peter Mansfield was appointed Professor of Physics at the University of Nottingham. As the Nobel Committee emphasized, the importance of the work of Peter Mansfield was that he further developed the utilization of gradients in the magnetic field. Mansfield demonstrated how the signals could be mathematically analyzed, which resulted in the development of  a practical  imaging technique. Mansfield also demonstrated how to achieve extremely fast imaging times by developing echo-planar imaging. This is all very impressive for a boy who left school at 15 with no qualifications.

13-sharing-an-amusing-tale-with-paul-lauterbur-2003

Peter Mansfield was awarded many prizes and awards including:

the Gold Medal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (1983); Fellow of the Royal Society (1987); the Silvanus Thompson Medal of the British Institute of Radiology (1988); the International Society of Magnetic Resonance (ISMAR) prize (jointly with Paul Lauterbur)(1992);  Knighthood (1993); Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Radiology and Honorary Member of the British Institute of Radiology (1993);  the Gold Medal of the European Congress of Radiology and the European Association of Radiology (1995);  Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics (1997); the Nobel Prize for Medicine together with Paul Lauterbur (2003);   Lifetime Achievement Award presented by Prime Minister Gordon Brown (2009).

His autobiography The Long Road to Stockholm, The Story of MRI was published in 2013. This is an interesting read, particularly in relation to his early years, and is recommended reading for everyone interested in the radiological sciences. This is a revealing account of a remarkable life. Whilst we may discuss the complexities of the development of MRI and exactly who should have received the Nobel Prize, there can be no doubt about his major contributions. MRI has made, and is making major contributions to health care. He died age 83 on 8 February 2017.

The University of Nottingham has set up an online book of condolence http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/sir-peter-mansfield/

About Dr Adrian Thomas, Honorary Historian BIR

Dr Thomas was a medical student at University College, London. He was taught medical history by Edwin Clarke, Bill Bynum and Jonathan Miller. In the mid-1980s he was a founding member of what is now the British Society for the History of Radiology. In 1995 he organised the radiology history exhibition for the Röntgen Centenary Congress and edited his first book on radiology history.

He has published extensively on radiology history and has actively promoted radiology history throughout his career. He is currently the Chairman of the International Society for the History of Radiology.

Dr Thomas believes it is important that radiology is represented in the wider medical history community and to that end lectures on radiology history in the Diploma of the History of Medicine of the Society Apothecaries (DHMSA). He is the immediate past-president of the British Society for the History of Medicine, and the UK national representative to the International Society for the History of Medicine.

See more on the history of radiology at http://www.bshr.org.uk

 

 

Breaking the mould – how  radiographer reporting is better for the patient.

nigel-thomas

Professor Nigel Thomas from the University of Salford explains why allowing a radiographer to report X-rays  is not threat to the radiology profession.

 

 

 

I’ll nail my colours to the mast straight away, and state that I have been an active proponent of radiographer role extension in general, and radiographer reporting in particular, for over 20 years.

I first became involved in mid 1995 when the University of Salford (then University College Salford) asked for help in setting up a formal plain film reporting course for radiographers. The context for this was the unresolved tension between the large numbers of unreported films in most X-ray Departments and the realisation that radiographers as a group of professionals were often working below their full potential – a real untapped resource within our own departments. Becoming involved in the process seemed to me to be a very obvious thing to do, and I have never had any regrets about doing so. I don’t believe that I have contributed to the demise of my profession, and I certainly don’t feel like a “turkey voting for Christmas”.

Over the years since then, radiographers have increased the breadth of their involvement in reporting (to currently include some types of MR scanning and CT, as well as gastro-intestinal contrast studies amongst other things), as well as developing a career structure which encompasses working at Advanced Practitioner and Consultant Radiographer levels (the latter being a particular success in the world of breast imaging, where consultant radiographers can follow an entire patient journey by being able to perform and report mammograms, perform and report breast ultrasound and perform guided biopsies, as well as having counselling skills).

It was clear from the beginning that there would be opposition to the idea of radiographer reporting, both from the radiology establishment, and, to a much lesser extent, from within the radiography profession itself. In order to ensure that the process of creating reporting radiographers was as good as it could be, certain quality measures were put into place. No radiographer can report in the UK without a recognised qualification (at PgC or Pgd level) gained from a higher education institution. In the context of the workplace, reporting is done within an agreed scheme of work (signed off by the employing Trust Board), and regular audit is undertaken.

In 2017 between 15 and 20% of all plain film examinations in the UK are reported by radiographers, and there are now over 50 people in consultant radiographer grades around the country. Reporting radiographers have been “part of the furniture” in X-ray departments for over 20 years, and generations of junior doctors, nurses and physiotherapists have been familiar with using them as a port of call for advice on the interpretation of images.

And yet, despite all of the above, resistance to radiographer reporting persists. I find this particularly perplexing for several reasons:

  1. The reporting shortfall still persists, and patients are being put at risk by our failure to report their examinations in a timely and accurate way – would we rather leave them unreported?
  2. Radiologists have more than enough to do – there are too few of us, and our time is used to apply our unique skill set to report labour intensive complex examinations, undertake time-consuming interventional procedures, and provide a commitment to the support of MDTs.
  3. There is a substantial body of sound scientific evidence (published in the major UK peer-reviewed radiological journals) that radiographer reporting works, is safe, and is of a comparable standard to that provided by medical staff in many areas.
  4. Radiologists have been involved in this process from day 1 – advising on course content, giving lectures, acting as examiners and external examiners, and, most importantly, acting as mentors to radiographers in training at their places of work.

The final irony for me, as we progress into the 21st century is that, despite all the above, it is clear that some of my colleagues are much keener to gain help from computers than humans. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)  will have a huge role to play in the routine provision of a radiology service in the near future, but reporting radiographers can help patients here and now.

References

Berman L, de Lacey G, Twomey E, Twomey B, Welch, T and Eban, R. ‘Reducing errors in the accident department: a simple method using radiographers’, British Medical Journal 1985; 290: 421-2

Loughran,C.F., Reporting of fracture radiographs by radiographers: the impact of a training programme. British Journal of Radiology, 67(802), 945 –950, 1994

Judith Kelly, Peter Hogg, Suzanne Henwood. The role of a consultant breast radiographer: A description and a reflection. Radiography, Volume 14, Supplement 1, e2-e10, 2008.

Brealey, S., Hewitt, C., Scally, A., Hahn, S., Godfrey, C., and Thomas, N.B. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers’ plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice. British Journal of Radiology, 82, (979), 600-604, 2009.

Piper, K., Buscall, K., Thomas, N.B., MRI reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme. Radiography, Volume 16, Issue 2, 136-142, May 2010

  1. Piper, S. Cox, A. Paterson, A. Thomas, N.B. Thomas, N. Jeyagopal, N. Woznitza. Chest reporting by radiographers: Findings of an accredited postgraduate programme, Radiography, Volume 20, Issue 2, 94-99, February 2014
  1. Snaith, M. Hardy, E.F. Lewis Radiographer reporting in the UK: A longitudinal analysis

Radiography, Volume 21, Issue 2, 119-123, 2015

About Nigel Thomas

Born and raised in Cornwall, I qualified from St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London in 1981 having gained an intercalated B.Sc in Biochemistry in 1978.

My radiology training was undertaken on the North Western Training Scheme (based in Manchester), and I was appointed as Consultant Radiologist to North Manchester General Hospital in 1989.In 2005 I moved to a Consultant post at Trafford General Hospital and retired as a full-time NHS Consultant Radiologist in 2015.

I currently work as an independent Consultant Radiologist and, amongst other roles, am a mentor to Reporting Radiographers at two large Foundation Trusts in the Manchester conurbation.

I first became involved in the process of radiographer role development at the University of Salford in 1995, and was appointed as an Honorary Professor there in 2000. I have over 40 publications in scientific journals, and am a co-author of a standard textbook of Obstetric and Gynaecological Ultrasound scanning.

 

Image: Courtesy of Nottingham University Hospitals

 

Top tips for honest science messages in the media

13-kate-elliottScience is often misrepresented in the media. The BIR supports the charity Sense about Science in their call for all research to be openly and honestly reported. This year we supported one of their Voice of Young Science workshops called “Standing up for Science” held on 16 September 2016 in London.

Here, Kate Elliott, Medical Physicist at  Mount Vernon Cancer Centre was one of three lucky BIR members to attend the workshop which gave young researchers top tips and advice on how to get their scientific messages across as clearly and accurately as possible.

 

I hate speaking in public and even the thought of writing this article terrified me. Why then, you might ask, did I apply to go on the Standing up for Science media workshop?

I often get annoyed at the coverage of science in the media and the misuse of statistics and results. Recently, the Brexit “debate” has left me ranting at friends, and I often find myself defending junior doctors on social media. When I received the email from BIR advertising the media workshop, it struck me as an opportunity to learn what I could do to positively influence the public perception of science, and to hear first-hand from journalists about their involvement.

The first session consisted of a panel of three scientists who told us of personal experiences with the press and offered advice based on this. An example which stood out to me as a healthcare scientist was Professor Stephen Keevil’s use of the media to highlight a problem with a new EU directive on physical agents[1], which could  have caused problems for MRI. Politicians took heed of his criticism, and effected a change to the directive in Brussels. This was a great example of how the media can be used effectively to influence policy – something that is likely to become increasingly important in the next few years.

The second session was a panel of three journalists, who explained their daily process for13-standing-up-for-science-workshop-sept-2016selecting and pitching stories. Science stories are selected based on interest, accessibility, and importance. These are pitched to the editors, who decide which ones to take further. The journalists pointed out that their duty is to their audience, not to science. Unfortunately, science has to compete with news on David Beckham’s haircut. Time constraints are also a problem. They write multiple articles a day (I’m three weeks and counting on this one…), so it’s important for scientists to be available to discuss their research on the day it’s published.

The third panel was about the nuts and bolts of how to interact with the media, and recommended campaigns such as Sense about Science’s “Ask for Evidence” campaign.

I left the event with the following advice to keep in mind:

  • If you disagree with something: speak out. If the public only hears one side of the story, that’s the side they’ll believe.
  • Stick to a few key points. Get those across, even if it means having to ignore questions or turn them around in an infuriatingly politician-like way!
  • Be available. If you’ve put out a press release, you need to be able to respond quickly. Journalists work to very stringent time scales, so being available in a week’s time is going to be too late.
  • Talk to the public. Attend events such as Pint of Science, or become a STEM ambassador, because that will really help you learn to speak in layman’s terms and get you used to answering obscure questions.
  • Get training. If not full media training, a workshop like this is a really good way to be slightly more prepared – and you get to hear about all the interesting science other people are involved in!

Image: BIR members  Jim Zhong, Kate Elliott and Maureen Obioha Agwanihu who attended the workshop

[1] https://www.myesr.org/html/img/pool/MRI-Report-Stephen-Keevil.pdf

MRI safety: Putting staff and patients first

 

Darren Hudson

 

Darren Hudson

 

To mark MRI Safety week (25 – 31 July), Darren Hudson, MRI Clinical Lead at InHealth highlights his top tips for making the MRI environment safe for both patients and staff.

He also explains how InHealth are ensuring their multidisciplinary teams get timely reminders about MRI best practice.

 

 

 

 

MRI Safety week marks the 15th anniversary of a terrible accident.  Six-year old Michael Colombini was killed by a portable oxygen cylinder when it was inadvertently brought into the MR scan room of Westchester Hospital, in America. This tragedy sparked important discussions in the US around safety in MR. In the UK, the MHRA produced their first guidance in 1993  [1][2] produced around the requirements and training needed to safely operate MR scanning facilities. This was last updated in 2015.

What’s the danger?

The static magnetic field in which MRI staff work is over 30,000 times stronger than the earth’s own magnetic field. It is always on, 24/7, regardless of whether scanning is being performed.

MRI safety imageThe greatest impact this can have is a missile effect on ferromagnetic items which may be
taken into the MRI scan room, causing them to be accelerated at very high speed towards the centre of the scanner. Depending on the nature and size of the object, whether it’s an earring or a wheelchair, the consequences can be very dangerous, and at worst catastrophic.

InHealth safety

InHealth logo

To mark the week InHealth are sending out some daily reminders to staff covering specific MR safety topics to help serve as a refresher around some keys aspects of MR safety and to raise awareness of good practice.

Key themes covered are object management and labelling, positioning of patients to prevent burns, communication with patients to ensure they alert staff to any discomfort or concerns, keeping patients cool, protecting patients from noise,  best practice on how to get feedback from patients and making sure all medical devices and implants are regularly checked for safety in accordance with guidelines.

As corporate members to the BIR we are working together to raise awareness of, and share support for MR safety within the wider imaging community.

Radiographers and clinical support staff play a key role in implementing the safety framework established across MRI services, with their knowledge and experience of the procedures and policies in place helping to ensure we maintain the safety of patients, visitors and staff.

Importantly, it has been shown that the most significant MR accidents are as a result of a cascade effect from a number of apparent minor breaches of safety procedures rather than from a single mistake. It is therefore essential we all remain vigilant and adhere accurately to the safety policies and procedures. Any potential breach of procedure or near-miss is a warning and as such these instances should be reported to ensure lessons can be learnt and acted upon to avoid more serious untoward events.

Reporting

Reporting of incidents and near misses is vital so that we can anticipate and prempt problems that may be arise so they can be addressed before more serious incidents may occur – today it may only be some coins, tomorrow it could be something more serious!

The human factor

Our fallibilities as human beings, both as staff and our patients, can adversely impact on MRI safety. To help promote MR safety InHealth staff are encouraged to undertake e-learning modules to highlight the hazards in MRI.

By working together and maintaining a cycle of safety procedures we can ensure that the MRI room is the safest environment it can be for both patients and staff.

[1]  Safety Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Equipment in Clinical Use

[2]   ACR Guidance Document on MR Safe Practices: 2013

InHealth logo

https://www.inhealthgroup.com/

Neuroimaging assessments in dementia

Vanessa Newman
Dr Vanessa Newman

Dementia is the leading cause of disability in people over 60 years old. Imaging is increasingly used to diagnose dementia to complement physical, cognitive and mental examinations.

Here, Dr Vanessa Newman explores the role of imaging in detecting this cruel and debilitating illness that effects over one million people in the UK.

Dementia: a global burden

Dementia is a leading cause of disability in people aged >60 years, representing a significant burden on patients in terms of quality of life, disability and mortality associated with the condition. This further impacts caregivers, health services and society in general. According to the World Alzheimer Report 2015, it is estimated there are 46.8 million people living with dementia worldwide and this number is due to double every 20 years. Of the 9.2 million people with dementia in Europe over 1.03 million live in the UK, representing a considerable health economic burden. Furthermore, general improved life expectancy of the global population is anticipated to correspond with increased prevalence of dementia.[1,2]

The impact of dementia on informal caregivers – such as family members and friends – is substantial and can result in physical and mental illness, social isolation and poor quality of life for them. Although their participation in the care of dementia patients may alleviate burden on healthcare systems and residential care homes, informal caregiving is not without societal costs caused by absenteeism from work.[2]

Different forms of dementia

Dementia is a progressive illness that affects not only a person’s memory but also their behaviour, mood, cognition and ability to perform daily activities. Progression of dementia is associated with both genetic predisposition and lifestyle factors, including smoking, alcohol, exercise and diet. There are a number of different dementia subtypes with varying incidence in the population, including vascular dementia (VaD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Parkinson’s dementia (PD) and mixed dementia. However, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most prevalent form, representing 62% of the dementia population.[3–6]

Diagnosing dementia

Although the majority of patients are diagnosed with dementia in later life, evidence shows that irreversible, pathological changes within the brain occur long before the onset of clinical symptoms. Gradual changes within the brain lead to progressive cognitive impairment and patients often experience a transitional period of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), during which a differential diagnosis may not be possible.[3,7–10]

Formal assessment of cognitive decline, as undertaken by dementia experts, usually includes physical, cognitive and mental examinations [e.g. the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)], plus a review of education and functional levels, medications and health history.[4,11]

Dementia assessment using brain biomarkers and structural imaging

There are several protein deposition biomarkers that may be used to assist in a diagnosis of dementing diseases, such as the presence of TDP-43 (FTD), Lewy bodies (DLB), alpha-synuclein (Parkinson’s disease), plus tau and β-amyloid which are typical in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (although not exclusive to this dementia subtype).[12,13] Historically, reliable diagnoses might only be made post-mortem using histopathology. However, increasingly the imaging of biomarkers or their effect on the living brain can be made earlier on in the course of disease, before evidence of memory impairment is seen.[12,13]

Piramal blog image 1

Fig 1. Source: Jovalekic et al. EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry (2017) 1:11. doi:10.1186/s41181-016-0015-3 (Copyright held by Piramal Lifesciences).

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sampling via lumbar puncture can help detect abnormal levels of soluble β‑amyloid42, total tau (T-tau) and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181), which may assist during the diagnostic workup of dementia patients being assessed for AD.[14] However, lumbar puncture is an invasive method and some patients may refuse the procedure or are contraindicated, for example, if they receive anticoagulant medications. In addition, CSF-based analyses show variability between immunoassay platforms and biomarker concentrations, which may present challenges to clinicians.[14–17]

Brain imaging in patients can assist a clinical diagnosis by examining presence of cerebral pathologies and structural changes, including MRI and CT that can detect subcortical vascular changes. Single-photon emission CT (SPECT) measuring perfusion can help differentiate AD, VaD and FTD,[4,11] while 2-(18F)Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) may assist in detecting impaired neuronal activity by measuring the cerebral metabolic rate of glucose. This has been used to detect abnormal patterns in the brain and the potential to predict conversion from MCI to AD or the diagnosis of AD has been demonstrated.[8,9,18–20] Both SPECT-perfusion imaging and FDG-PET are indirect measures of disease that detect characteristic changes in glucose and oxygen metabolism. However, these imaging modalities show limitations in reflecting the aetiology of prodromal or mild AD.[8,9,11,19,20]

Brain β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition and plaque formation occurs early in the pathogenesis of AD, therefore offering the potential to assist in an early clinical diagnosis of patients being evaluated for Alzheimer’s dementia and other forms of cognitive impairment. Amyloid-PET is a relatively recent imaging modality and three 18F-labelled imaging agents are licensed for use in the EU that can detect the presence of β-amyloid neuritic plaques in the living brain, with validated visual assessment methods using histopathology as the standard of truth (Fig.2).[13,21] According to published appropriate use criteria, amyloid-PET is considered to have greatest utility in a subset of dementia patients:[22–24]

  • where there is an established persistent or progressive unexplained memory impairment (unclear diagnosis); or
  • where brain Aβ is a diagnostic consideration based on core clinical criteria, and where knowledge of this pathology may alter patient management; or
  • with progressive dementia and atypical age of onset (usually <65 years of age).

Piramal blog image 2

Fig 2: 18F-labelled imaging agents have the ability to detect the presence of β-amyloid neuritic plaques in the living brain (immunohistochemistry with monoclonal 6E10 Aβ antibody).[13]

Fig. 2: Source: Jovalekic et al. EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry (2017) 1:11. doi:10.1186/s41181-016-0015-3 (Copyright held by Piramal Lifesciences).

Amyloid-PET does not alone provide a diagnosis, rather it forms part of the greater assessment workup by clinical experts, including neurologists, psychiatrists and geriatricians. The knowledge of the presence or absence of β-amyloid plaques has been shown to support a confident differential diagnosis and a tailored patient care plan, including use of medications where appropriate. There is also added value for patients and their caregivers in knowing the cause of dementia, enabling decision-making and planning for the future including the possibility of enrolling into clinical trials.[5,6,8,22–28]

 The future of diagnostic imaging

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is reviewing guidance on the organisation and delivery of diagnostic services, due for publication in August 2017. The scope of the revised guidance will encompass imaging in neurodegenerative diseases, as part of the wider radiology/nuclear medicine service in the NHS. This will affect not only patients, but all staff who use, refer and interpret diagnostic services in both primary, secondary and tertiary care.[29]

Author: Vanessa Newman (MD-V, PhD), Medical Affairs Director at Piramal Imaging Ltd

References

  1. Alzheimer-Europe, The prevalence of dementia in Europe. 2015, Alzheimer Europe: Luxembourg.
  2. Prince, M., World Alzheimer Report 2015: The Global Impact of Dementia – an analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends, A.s.D.I. (ADI), Editor. 1015: London.
  3. Prince, M., World Alzheimer Report 2014: Dementia and Risk Reduction – an analysis of protective and modifyable factors, A.s.D. International, Editor. 2014, Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI): London, UK.
  4. NICE, Clinical guideline 42: Dementia: Supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. 2006, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): London, UK.
  5. Deckers, K., et al., Target risk factors for dementia prevention: a systematic review and Delphi consensus study on the evidence from observational studies. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2015. 30(3): p. 234-46.
  6. Kivipelto, M. and F. Mangialasche, Alzheimer disease: To what extent can Alzheimer disease be prevented? Nat Rev Neurol, 2014. 10(10): p. 552-3.
  7. Catafau, A.M. and Bullich, S., Amyloid PET imaging: applications beyond Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Transl Imaging, 2015. 3(1): p. 39-55.
  8. Sabri, O., et al., Florbetaben PET imaging to detect amyloid beta plaques in Alzheimer’s disease: phase 3 study. Alzheimers Dement, 2015. 11(8): p. 964-74.
  9. Sabri, O., et al., Beta-amyloid imaging with florbetaben. Clin Transl Imaging, 2015. 3(1): p. 13-26.
  10. Vos, S.J., et al., Prediction of Alzheimer disease in subjects with amnestic and nonamnestic MCI. Neurology, 2013. 80(12): p. 1124-32.
  11. Bloudek, L.M., et al., Review and meta-analysis of biomarkers and diagnostic imaging in Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis, 2011. 26(4): p. 627-45.
  12. Sperling, R.A., Karlawish, J., and Johnson K.A., Preclinical Alzheimer disease-the challenges ahead. Nat Rev Neurol, 2013. 9(1): p. 54-8.
  13. Jovalekic, A., et al., New protein deposition tracers in the pipeline. EJNMMI Radiopharmacy and Chemistry, 2017. 1(1).
  14. Roe, C.M., et al., Amyloid imaging and CSF biomarkers in predicting cognitive impairment up to 7.5 years later. Neurology, 2013. 80(19): p. 1784-91.
  15. Dubois, B., et al., Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease: the IWG-2 criteria. The Lancet Neurology, 2014. 13(6): p. 614-629.
  16. Perret-Liaudet, A., et al., Risk of Alzheimer’s disease biological misdiagnosis linked to cerebrospinal collection tubes. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012. 31(1): p. 13-20.
  17. Kang, J.H., et al., Clinical utility and analytical challenges in measurement of cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-beta(1-42) and tau proteins as Alzheimer disease biomarkers. Clin Chem, 2013. 59(6): p. 903-16.
  18. Ng, S., et al., Visual Assessment Versus Quantitative Assessment of 11C-PIB PET and 18F-FDG PET for Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 2007. 48(4): p. 547-552.
  19. Perani, D., et al., A survey of FDG- and amyloid-PET imaging in dementia and GRADE analysis. Biomed Res Int, 2014. 2014: p. 785039.
  20. Piramal, NeuraCeq (florbetaben 18F) Summary of Product Characteristics. 2015, Piramal Imaging Ltd.
  21. EMA. Human Medicines: European public assessment reports. 2016 [cited 2016 July]; Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124.
  22. Johnson, K.A., et al., Appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET: a report of the Amyloid Imaging Task Force, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimers Dement, 2013. 9(1): p. e-1-16.
  23. Johnson, K.A., et al., Update on appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET imaging: dementia experts, mild cognitive impairment, and education. J Nucl Med, 2013. 54(7): p. 1011-3.
  24. Scarsbrook, A. and Barrington S., Evidence-based indications for the use of PET-CT in the United Kingdom 2016, R.C.o.P. Royal College of Radiologists, Editor. 2016, RCR, RCP: London, UK.
  25. Bang, J., Spina, S., and Miller, B.L., Frontotemporal dementia. The Lancet, 2015. 386(10004): p. 1672-1682.
  26. Kobylecki, C., et al., A Positron Emission Tomography Study of [18f]-Florbetapir in Alzheimer’s Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2013. 84(11): p. e2-e2.
  27. Barthel, H., Seibyl, J., and Sabri O., The role of positron emission tomography imaging in understanding Alzheimer’s disease. Expert Rev Neurother, 2015. 15(4): p. 395-406.
  28. Pontecorvo, M.J., et al., A randomized, controlled, multicenter, international study of the impact of florbetapir (<sup>18</sup>F) PET amyloid imaging on patient management and outcome. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. 11(7): p. P334.
  29. NICE. Dementia – assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers: GUIDANCE. NICE Guidance 2016 [cited 2016 June]; Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-cgwave0792.

About Vanessa Newman

Vanessa’s background is in neurology (epilepsy and Down’s syndrome) and more recently in the field of neuroimaging in dementia. She has worked at Piramal Imaging since early 2015 and during this time has had the pleasure of seeing how quickly this area of medicine is moving, with increasing methods and imaging diagnostics available for use with people living with dementia.

Date of preparation: July 2016. ©Piramal Imaging Ltd. UK/FBB/1015/0021

Piramal Imaging Ltd, Langstone Technology Park, Langstone Road, Havant, Hampshire PO9 1SA, United Kingdom

Piramal Imaging Ltd medical information enquiries: Medicalaffairs.imaging@piramal.com
Piramal Imaging Ltd media enquiries: inquiries.imaging@piramal.com

Piramal is a British Institute of Radiology corporate member.

Piramal logo

The Pelvic Radiation Disease Association – a voice for patients

Claire Poole

Claire Poole

Radiotherapy is an effective treatment for pelvic cancers but it is not widely known that the radiotherapy can affect healthy tissue and bone causing severe pain, incontinence and distress.

Here, Claire Poole explains what it’s like to have Pelvic Radiation Disease (PRD) and why she risked her life to raise money for the charity which has given her so much support.

 

 

Each year, in the UK, about 30,000 patients receive radiotherapy for pelvic cancers, half of whom are left with altered bowel and bladder functions that drastically impede a return to normal living.  Symptoms of severe pain, nausea and vomiting, incontinence, damage to bones, gut/stomach issues can appear shortly after treatment, or months – even years – afterwards.  Patients who report problems to their oncologists, surgeons and radiotherapists are often told that “We’ve cured your cancer so what’s the fuss about?. This response is common and also unacceptable. There are effective ways to manage late effects of pelvic radiotherapy (now recognised as PRD) and patients fortunate enough to get appropriate treatment report an average 70% improvement in symptoms.

Sky dive 1

Risking my life for PRDA

On Saturday 18th June 2016, I threw myself out of a plane at 15,000 ft. I harnessed my fearand put my life in the hands of the fantastic team at Go Skydive in Salisbury to do a tandem skydive, plummeting to earth at 125mph. I did this wacky thing to raise money for the Pelvic Radiation Disease Association (PRDA).

PRDA is a very small charity run by volunteers. The charity works so very hard trying to raise awareness of this condition among health professionals. PRD, the late effects of pelvic radiotherapy is not widely recognised by our own GPs or indeed the NHS. It has become a big part of mine, my partner, my two children, my family and friends’ lives.

I was diagnosed with cervical cancer four years ago, and had intense treatment consisting of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and internal radiotherapy. Thankfully, due to the treatment received I am still here, however, the radiotherapy treatment has changed my life. Yes it killed the cancer, but it also killed my insides.

Radiotherapy burns, it burns everything it touches. So while radiotherapy is highly effective in treating pelvic tumours, due to the nature of the treatment, it can affect tissues and other organs in the pelvic area. During my treatment not only were the cancer cells burnt and killed, but also all my healthy cells, tissues, bowel and bladder badly affected. Any cancer patient who receives radiotherapy to the pelvic area, will probably at some point experience the late effects of the cancer treatment. This could occur anything up to two to three years or longer after treatment. If this happens, as it did to myself and many other patients, we become unable to enjoy our cancer free lives. Our quality of life is hugely affected, from severe pain, nausea and vomiting, incontinence, damage to bones, gut/stomach issues. All of which can be either minor or cause you to be housebound or even hospitalised. All of which I have, and do experience.

I am a patient at the Royal Marsden and have been now for a few years. A very special man put me in touch with PRDA, a Dr Jervoise Andreyev. This wonderful man is a consultant gastroenterologist, who specialises in PRD and started PRDA. Dr Andreyev has made a huge difference to my life. Without the care of this man and his team, I would not be where I am today. I am not cured, but I am on treatments, have made lifestyle changes and I’m completing a medical trial. All with the help of Dr Andreyev, his team and PRDA.

Why did I raise money for this charity that many of you have never heard of?

I want to get PRD noticed and talked about and to publicise PRDA, to enable PRDA to help and support the thousands of other patients like me, who thought it was OK and normal, to have their quality of life taken from them just because they have had cancer. It is NOT OK. After all, we have fought so hard to beat cancer, surely we deserve to be given the best treatment and support possible, to try and live the rest of our lives happy and healthier with our families and friends?

Thank you so much for taking time in your day to read this. Please, please help me and others to raise as much money as possible to keep this wonderful charity going. To continue helping the thousands of brave, strong, beautiful women and men who need the support of PRDA in their lives”.

About the Pelvic Radiation Disease Association, (PRDA)

logo for PRDA

PRDA is  a support organisation of patients, carers and medical professionals formed in 2007 became a registered charity in 2012 (no 1147802).  We currently have 5 volunteer Trustees and 1 part-time self-employed Administrator. We publicise and increase awareness of PRD and provide support and advice to patients suffering from consequences of treatment. We inform and educate cancer nurse specialists, radiographers, oncologists, gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons, gynaecologists and urologists, about the symptoms and effects of PRD and provide clear and simple advice on how to refer patients for specialised help and treatment.

PRDA runs a telephone help line and an ‘email a nurse specialist’ advice service and are backed by a multidisciplinary team of experts to advise us on medical questions. Our website www.prda.org.uk provides support and advice for sufferers and we receive enquiries from around the world. The charity hosts support meetings covering such topics as diet, exercise, self-help, sexual health and radiography addressed by specialists on these topics – our aim is to provide help to enable people to cope better with the consequences of their treatment.

We present the charity’s work and objectives at major conferences throughout the UK via information stands and talks by patient ‘experts’ and have designed and produced literature for both patients and health professionals, working closely with other charities, particularly Macmillan Cancer support, Prostate Cancer, Beating Bowel Cancer, Bowel Cancer UK and Jo’s Trust (cervical cancer). These partnerships are essential to our work and together with Macmillan we chaired a Pan Pelvic Cancer committee of likeminded charities. In 2015 this resulted in a highly successful programme of training days for specialist helpline nurses from major cancer charities, an activity we strive to continue. We currently have an ongoing project in collaboration with Macmillan Cancer Support to list all gastroenterologists in the UK prepared to see patients with PRD.

PRDA has an active Facebook group with members both from the UK as well as other parts of the world, in particular the USA. This is a closed group and applications can be accepted via the PRDA website.

www.prda.org.uk

Registered charity number 1147802

(England & Wales) and a company limited by guarantee number 7998409