Nehra, Avinash

Abstract Dysphagia is defined as a subjective sensation of difficulty swallowing and can result from oropharyngeal or esophageal etiologies based upon patient symptoms. Dysphagia affects approximately 16% of adults in the general population, with prevalence increasing with age. Esophagogastroduodenuoscopy (EGD) is initially performed to assess for structural abnormalities resulting in esophageal dysphagia. However, if EGD reveals no pathologic abnormalities, high-resolution manometry (HRM) and barium esophagography are performed in order to assess for underlying causes of dysmotility. Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) are an underrecognized cause of dysphagia and can be characterized by impaired esophageal peristalsis or lower esophageal sphincter dysfunction. High-resolution manometry (HRM) measures key metrics such as integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), which is the deglutitive relaxation across the LES, and metrics of esophageal body peristalsis based on distal contractile integral (DCI) and distal latency (DL). The Chicago Classification version 4 (CCv4.0), published in 2021, provides a standardized classification scheme for differentiating EMDs using metrics from HRM. Additionally, barium esophagography has remained an important adjunctive diagnostic modality, as this may identify strictures, neoplasms, or hiatal hernias, but can also identify major motility disorders such as achalasia and distal esophageal spasm. The combined use of HRM with timed barium esophagram can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of EMDs, particularly when HRM demonstrates inconclusive findings. Therefore, radiologists should be familiar with how imaging findings from barium esophagram integrate with findings noted on HRM. The aim of this review is to highlight the findings of EMDs noted on HRM in conjunction with barium esophagography, thereby illustrating characteristic patterns of primary and secondary EMDs.

Radiologists are uniquely positioned to play a critical role in the detection, surveillance, and characterization of hereditary abdominal cancer syndromes.

Abstract Objectives: Radiologist participation in multidisciplinary tumor board can be time-consuming and demanding, requiring substantial preparation. Anecdotally radiologist participation is felt to help identify discrepancies in previous interpretations; however, there are limited data assessing the actual impact of their tumor board review on patient management. This prospective study aims to evaluate how the reinterpretation of outside imaging and review at hepatobiliary tumor board (HBTB) affects the diagnosis and management of patients with hepatobiliary neoplasms. Methods: This prospective analysis included all patients presented at the weekly HBTB between 6/13/2023 - 6/25/2024. One radiologist reviewed the available reports of outside imaging, the local reinterpretation of outside imaging, the updated local imaging, and documented conclusions from discussion of the case at HBTB. HBTB included 4 radiologists who had reviewed each case. Discrepancies (presence/absence, number, and reasons for) were recorded. When discrepancies occurred, the impact on patient management (5-point Likert scale) was determined by two of the radiologists present at the HBTB in consensus, with input from clinicians if needed. A six-month follow-up was performed to confirm suspected diagnoses. Results: 208 cases (128 males, 104 chronic liver disease patients) were presented at HBTB. Disagreements in the detection or characterization of lesions were found in 59/208 (28.4%) of cases. A change in management occurred in 38/59 (64.6%) of these discrepant cases. In cases with recorded discrepancies in which follow-up confirmation was available, the final interpretation was confirmed in 34/41 (82.9%) of cases. Conclusion: Our study found a discrepant interpretation in nearly one-third of cases presented at a weekly HBTB and a resultant change in management in 65% of those cases. These findings highlight the importance of reinterpretation of prior imaging studies and the presence of radiologists at HBTB to guide optimal patient management.

Summary Introduction Peroral plication of the esophagus (POPE) can reduce sump size and improve symptoms in end-stage achalasia. However, its long-term efficacy and safety are unknown. Methods Patients with end-stage achalasia who underwent POPE at our institution (2016–2024) were identified. Data were abstracted for patient demographics, procedural details, and clinical and radiographic outcomes. Results Twelve patients underwent POPE. The technical success rate was 100%, with mean procedural time of 57 minutes and without adverse events. Symptomatic improvement occurred in 75% of patients (mean follow-up of 15 months), while 86% had radiographic improvement in sump size. Repeat POPE in 6 (50%) patients a mean of 2.6 years after index POPE and a third POPE in four (33%) patients a mean of 3.1 years later was performed, with similar technical success rates and outcomes to the index POPE. Conclusions POPE is a safe and repeatable long-term therapeutic option in end-stage achalasia.

Abstract Appendiceal intussusception is a rare condition characterized by the telescoping or invagination of a portion or the entire appendix into the caecum or within the appendix itself. Diagnosing appendiceal intussusception can be challenging due to its rarity, non-specific symptoms, and lack of awareness among physicians. We present a case report of appendiceal intussusception caused by endometriosis presenting with recurrent abdominal pain in a young female that was initially missed on CT scan and laparoscopy and eventually diagnosed on CT enterography.

ImportanceIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are pancreatic cysts that can give rise to pancreatic cancer (PC). Limited population data exist on their prevalence, natural history, or risk of malignant transformation (IPMN-PC).ObjectiveTo fill knowledge gaps in epidemiology of IPMNs and associated PC risk by estimating population prevalence of IPMNs, associated PC risk, and proportion of IPMN-PC.Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Using the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP), patients aged 50 years and older with abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans between 2000 and 2015 were randomly selected (CT cohort). All patients from the REP with PC between 2000 and 2019 were also selected (PC cohort). Data were analyzed from November 2021 through August 2023.Main outcomes and MeasuresCIs for PC incidence estimates were calculated using exact methods with the Poisson distribution. Cox models were used to estimate age, sex, and stage–adjusted hazard ratios for time-to-event end points.ResultsThe CT cohort included 2114 patients (1140 females [53.9%]; mean [SD] age, 68.6 [12.1] years). IPMNs were identified in 231 patients (10.9%; 95% CI, 9.7%-12.3%), most of which were branch duct (210 branch-duct [90.9%], 16 main-duct [6.9%], and 5 mixed [2.2%] IPMNs). There were 5 Fukuoka high-risk (F-HR) IPMNs (2.2%), 39 worrisome (F-W) IPMNs (16.9%), and 187 negative (F-N) IPMNs (81.0%). After a median (IQR) follow-up of 12.0 (8.1-15.3) years, 4 patients developed PC (2 patients in F-HR and 2 patients in F-N groups). The PC incidence rate per 100 person years for F-HR IPMNs was 34.06 incidents (95% CI, 4.12-123.02 incidents) and not significantly different for patients with F-N IPMNs compared with patients without IPMNs (0.16 patients; 95% CI, 0.02-0.57 patients vs 0.11 patients; 95% CI, 0.06-0.17 patients; P = .62). The PC cohort included 320 patients (155 females [48.4%]; mean [SD] age, 72.0 [12.3] years), and 9.8% (95% CI, 7.0%-13.7%) had IPMN-PC. Compared with 284 patients with non-IPMN PC, 31 patients with IPMN-PC were older (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [9.2] vs 71.3 [12.5] years; P = .02) and more likely to undergo surgical resection (14 patients [45.2%] vs 60 patients [21.1%]; P = .003) and more-frequently had nonmetastatic PC at diagnosis (20 patients [64.5%] vs 130 patients [46.8%]; P = .047). Patients with IPMN-PC had better survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94; P = .03) than patients with non-IPMN PC.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, CTs identified IPMNs in approximately 10% of patients aged 50 years or older. PC risk in patients with F-N IPMNs was low and not different compared with patients without IPMNs; approximately 10% of patients with PC had IPMN-PC, and they had better survival compared with patients with non-IPMN PC.

Radical prostatectomy is widely used as the primary modality of treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer. A considerable proportion of men will have adverse histopathologic features and could benefit from adjunctive treatments: mainly adjuvant or salvage radiation. This review focusses on the still unanswered questions: How to manage the patient after radical prostatectomy? Which patients need further treatment and which ones will not progress if not treated? How to refine patients selection for further treatments? What is the role for clinical nomograms and biomarkers and which ones are validated? When is it wise to propose adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) instead of observation with or without salvage RT? What is the optimal timing for the use of salvage RT and how to choose patients for each approach? This article discusses the evidence available in the current literature, providing a critical analysis of the controversies of each strategy.

Abstract Background and Aims Our goal was to determine the importance of ileal inflammation at computed tomography or magnetic resonance enterography in Crohn’s disease patients with normal ileoscopy. Methods Patients with negative ileoscopy and biopsy within 30 days of CT or MR enterography showing ileal inflammation were included. The severity [0–3 scale] and length of inflammation within the distal 20 cm of the terminal ileum were assessed on enterography. Subsequent medical records were reviewed for ensuing surgery, ulceration at ileoscopy, histological inflammation, or new or worsening ileal inflammation or stricture on enterography. Imaging findings were classified as: Confirmed Progression [subsequent surgery or radiological worsening, new ulcers at ileoscopy or positive histology]; Radiologic Response [decreased inflammation with medical therapy]; or Unlikely/Unconfirmed Inflammation. Results Of 1471 patients undergoing enterography and ileoscopy, 112 [8%] had imaging findings of inflammation with negative ileoscopy, and 88 [6%] had negative ileoscopy and ileal biopsy. Half [50%; 44/88] with negative biopsy had moderate/severe inflammation at enterography, with 45%, 32% and 11% having proximal small bowel inflammation, stricture or fistulas, respectively. Two-thirds with negative biopsy [67%; 59/88] had Confirmed Progression, with 68%, 70% and 61% having subsequent surgical resection, radiological worsening or ulcers at subsequent ileoscopy, respectively. Mean length and severity of ileal inflammation in these patients was 10 cm and 1.6. Thirteen [15%] patients had Radiologic Response, and 16 [18%] had Unlikely/Unconfirmed Inflammation. Conclusion Crohn’s disease patients with unequivocal imaging findings of ileal inflammation at enterography despite negative ileoscopy and biopsy are likely to have active inflammatory Crohn’s disease. Disease detected by imaging may worsen over time or respond to medical therapy.

T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) is common after liver transplantation (LT), and it is often thought to have a minimum impact on outcomes. Because alloimmune response changes over time, we investigated the role of the timing of TCMR on patient and allograft survival and examined the risk factors for early and late TCMR. We reviewed protocol liver biopsies for 787 consecutive LT recipients with an 8.6‐year follow‐up. The incidence of early TCMR (≤6 weeks after LT) was 33.5% with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis patients having the lowest incidence. Younger recipient age (P < 0.01), number of human leukocyte antigen mismatches (P < 0.01), and use of deceased donor allografts (P = 0.01) were associated with increased risk of early TCMR, which had no impact on allograft (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.79‐1.32; P = 0.89) or overall survival (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78‐1.34; P = 0.86). Late TCMR (>6 weeks after LT) was less common (17.7%) and was associated with different risk factors. The majority of late TCMR (56.2%) episodes had no antecedent early TCMR, although moderate‐to‐severe early TCMR (HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.55‐5.23; P < 0.01) and steroid resistance (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.87‐6.99; P < 0.01) were associated with late TCMR. Late TCMR increased risk of mortality (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.35‐2.65; P = 0.001) and graft loss (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.23‐2.37; P = 0.001). Thus, these data suggest that the timing and histologic grade of TCMR determine its impact on patient and allograft survival. Early mild TCMR episodes after LT do not adversely impact patient or allograft survival provided that they are adequately treated. The occurrence of late TCMR carries deleterious effects with increased longterm risk of graft loss and decreased survival. Patients with moderate‐to‐severe early TCMR are at an increased risk for late TCMR and warrant closer clinical follow‐up.