Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 194 pediatric patients aged 0 to 19 years (median 10.2 years) who underwent both ultrafast and conventional brain MRI between May 2019 and August 2020. Ultrafast MRI sequences included T1 and T2-weighted images (T1WI and T2WI), fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2*-weighted image (T2*WI), and diffusion-weighted image (DWI). Qualitative image quality and lesion evaluations were conducted on 5-point Likert scales by two blinded radiologists, with quantitative assessment of lesion count and size on T1WI, T2WI, and FLAIR sequences for each protocol. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses were used for comparison. Results: The total scan times for equivalent image contrasts were 1 minute 44 seconds for ultrafast MRI and 15 minutes 30 seconds for conventional MRI. Overall, image quality was lower in ultrafast MRI than in conventional MRI, with mean quality scores ranging from 2.0 to 4.8 for ultrafast MRI and 4.8 to 5.0 for conventional MRI across sequences (P < 0.001 for T1WI, T2WI, FLAIR, and T2*WI for both readers; P = 0.018 [reader 1] and 0.031 [reader 2] for DWI). Lesion detection rates on ultrafast MRI relative to conventional MRI were as follows: T1WI, 97.1%; T2WI, 99.6%; FLAIR, 92.9%; T2*WI, 74.1%; and DWI, 100%. The ICC (95% confidence interval) for lesion size measurements between ultrafast and conventional MRI was as follows: T1WI, 0.998 (0.996–0.999); T2WI, 0.998 (0.997–0.999); and FLAIR, 0.99 (0.985–0.994). Conclusion Ultrafast MRI significantly reduces scan time and provides acceptable results, albeit with slightly lower image quality than conventional MRI, for evaluating intracranial abnormalities in pediatric patients.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.

Background/Aims: Increased prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been reported. However, the effects of NAFLD on the outcome of IBD remains unclear. We investigated whether the presence of NAFLD could influence the outcomes of patients with IBD. Methods: We recruited 3,356 eligible patients with IBD into our study between November 2005and November 2020. Hepatic steatosis and fibrosis were diagnosed using hepatic steatosisindex of ≥30 and fibrosis-4 of ≥1.45, respectively. The primary outcome was clinical relapse, defined based on the following: IBD-related admission, surgery, or first use of corticosteroids, immunomodulators, or biologic agents for IBD. Results: The prevalence of NAFLD in patients with IBD was 16.7%. Patients with hepatic ste-atosis and advanced fibrosis were older, had a higher body mass index, and were more likely to have diabetes (all p<0.05). Conclusions Hepatic steatosis was independently associated with increased risks of clinical relapse in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, whereas fibrotic burden in the liver was not. Future studies should investigate whether assessment and therapeutic intervention for NAFLD will improve the clinical outcomes of patients with IBD.

Background/Aims: The impact of vaccination on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is still unknown, and no studies have assessed the changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after vaccination in patients with IBD. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the impact of vaccines on the PROs of patients with IBD. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey of patients with IBD who visited outpatient clinics at 4 specialized IBD clinics of referral university hospitals from April 2022 to June 2022. A total of 309 IBD patients were included in the study. Patient information was collected from a questionnaire and their medical records, including laboratory findings, were reviewed retrospectively. Risk factors associated with an increase in PROs after COVID-19 vaccination were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. In addition, we assessed whether there were differences in variables by vaccine order using the linear mixed model. Results: In multivariate analysis, young age ( < 40 years) and ulcerative colitis (UC) were found to be independent risk factors for aggravation of PROs in patients with IBD. In all patients, platelet count significantly increased with continued vaccination in multiple pairwise comparisons. In UC patients, PROs such as the short health scale, UC-abdominal signs and symptoms, and UC-bowel signs and symptoms were aggravated significantly with continued vaccination. There was no significant increase in the variables of patients with Crohn’s disease. Conclusions Therefore, there may be a need to counsel patients with IBD younger than 40 years of age, and patients with UC before they receive COVID-19 vaccinations.

Objective: : Chronic subdural hematomas (cSDHs) are generally known to result from traumatic tears of bridging veins. However, the causes of repeat spontaneous cSDHs are still unclear. We investigated the changes in vasculature in the human dura mater and outer membrane (OM) of cSDHs to elucidate the cause of their spontaneous repetition. Methods: : The dura mater was obtained from a normal control participant and a patient with repeat spontaneous cSDHs. The pathological samples from the patient included the dura mater and OM tightly adhered to the inner dura. The samples were analyzed with a particular focus on blood and lymphatic vessels by immunohistochemistry, 3-dimensional imaging using a transparent tissue clearing technique, and electron microscopy. Results: : The dural border cell (DBC) layer of the dura mater and OM were histologically indistinguishable. There were 5.9 times more blood vessels per unit volume of tissue in the DBC layer and OM in the patient than in the normal control. The DBC layer and OM contained pathological sinusoidal capillaries not observed in the normal tissue; these capillaries were connected to the middle meningeal arteries via penetrating arteries. In addition, marked lymphangiogenesis in the periosteal and meningeal layers was observed in the patient with cSDHs. Conclusion : Neovascularization in the OM seemed to originate from the DBC layer; this is a potential cause of repeat spontaneous cSDHs. Embolization of the meningeal arteries to interrupt the blood supply to pathological capillaries via penetrating arteries may be an effective treatment option.

In recent years, next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based genetic testing has become crucial in cancer care. While its primary objective is to identify actionable genetic alterations to guide treatment decisions, its scope has broadened to encompass aiding in pathological diagnosis and exploring resistance mechanisms. With the ongoing expansion in NGS application and reliance, a compelling necessity arises for expert consensus on its application in solid cancers. To address this demand, the forthcoming recommendations not only provide pragmatic guidance for the clinical use of NGS but also systematically classify actionable genes based on specific cancer types. Additionally, these recommendations will incorporate expert perspectives on crucial biomarkers, ensuring informed decisions regarding circulating tumor DNA panel testing.