Currently, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is the most common liver disease worldwide, with a prevalence of 32%. It is much more common among men (40%) and among patients with metabolic comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes and dyslipidemia. Being an asymptomatic disease, the diagnosis is often established on the basis of imaging methods, with an important role given to abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. In order to facilitate diagnosis, experts have introduced a series of blood biomarkers. Two biomarker panels are currently validated for the diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: the fatty liver index, and the hepatic steatosis index. The fatty liver index has been in use in medical practice for over 17 years and has demonstrated its accuracy in various studies that compared it with other diagnostic methods, highlighted its role in screening patients with cardiovascular risk and validated the effects of different diets and drugs that are proposed for the treatment of the disease. In the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, the fatty liver index is an important algorithm in the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with metabolic risk. Taking into account the diversity of drugs to be approved in the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, the fatty liver index will become an effective tool in monitoring the effects of these therapies.

Background: Cancer is a well‐known risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). A combined strategy of D‐dimer testing and clinical pre‐test probability is usually used to exclude VTE. However, its effectiveness is diminished in cancer patients due to reduced specificity, ultimately leading to a decreased clinical utility. This review article seeks to provide a comprehensive summary of how to interpret D‐dimer testing in cancer patients.Methods: In accordance with PRISMA standards, literature pertaining to the diagnostic and prognostic significance of D‐dimer testing in cancer patients was carefully chosen from reputable sources such as PubMed and the Cochrane databases.Results: D‐dimers have not only a diagnostic value in ruling out VTE but can also serve as an aid for rule‐in if their values exceed 10‐times the upper limit of normal. This threshold allows a diagnosis of VTE in cancer patients with a positive predictive value of more than 80%. Moreover, elevated D‐dimers carry important prognostic information and are associated with VTE reoccurrence. A gradual increase in risk for all‐cause death suggests that VTE is also an indicator of biologically more aggressive cancer types and advanced cancer stages. Considering the lack of standardization for D‐dimer assays, it is essential for clinicians to carefully consider the variations in assay performance and the specific test characteristics of their institution.Conclusions: Standardizing D‐dimer assays and developing modified pretest probability models specifically for cancer patients, along with adjusted cut‐off values for D‐dimer testing, could significantly enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of VTE diagnosis in this population.

Background: The advent of next-generation computed tomography (CT)- and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) opened many new perspectives in the evaluation of tumor characteristics. An increasing body of evidence suggests the incorporation of quantitative imaging biomarkers into clinical decision-making to provide mineable tissue information. The present study sought to evaluate the diagnostic and predictive value of a multiparametric approach involving radiomics texture analysis, dual-energy CT-derived iodine concentration (DECT-IC), and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in participants with histologically proven pancreatic cancer. Methods: In this study, a total of 143 participants (63 years ± 13, 48 females) who underwent third-generation dual-source DECT and DWI between November 2014 and October 2022 were included. Among these, 83 received a final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 20 had pancreatitis, and 40 had no evidence of pancreatic pathologies. Data comparisons were performed using chi-square statistic tests, one-way ANOVA, or two-tailed Student’s t-test. For the assessment of the association of texture features with overall survival, receiver operating characteristics analysis and Cox regression tests were used. Results: Malignant pancreatic tissue differed significantly from normal or inflamed tissue regarding radiomics features (overall P < .001, respectively) and iodine uptake (overall P < .001, respectively). The performance for the distinction of malignant from normal or inflamed pancreatic tissue ranged between an AUC of ≥ 0.995 (95% CI, 0.955–1.0; P < .001) for radiomics features, ≥ 0.852 (95% CI, 0.767–0.914; P < .001) for DECT-IC, and ≥ 0.690 (95% CI, 0.587–0.780; P = .01) for DWI, respectively. During a follow-up of 14 ± 12 months (range, 10–44 months), the multiparametric approach showed a moderate prognostic power to predict all-cause mortality (c-index = 0.778 [95% CI, 0.697–0.864], P = .01). Conclusions: Our reported multiparametric approach allowed for accurate discrimination of pancreatic cancer and revealed great potential to provide independent prognostic information on all-cause mortality.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is one of the common and potentially lethal manifestations of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). ILD’s prevalence, clinical patterns, imaging, and natural history are variable. Each of the representative diseases—systemic sclerosis (SSc), idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Sjӧgren’s syndrome (SjS), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)—have distinct clinical, paraclinical and evolutionary features. Risk factors with predictive value for ILD have been identified. This review summarizes, from the clinician’s perspective, recent data from the literature regarding the specificity of ILD for each of the autoimmune rheumatic diseases, with an emphasis on the role of the multidisciplinary team in early diagnosis, case management, as well as the particularities of the clinical approach to the progressive phenotype of ILD in SARDs.

Background: To investigate the potential of radiomic features and dual‐source dual‐energy CT (DECT) parameters in differentiating between benign and malignant mediastinal masses and predicting patient outcomes.Methods: In this retrospective study, we analysed data from 90 patients (38 females, mean age 51 ± 25 years) with confirmed mediastinal masses who underwent contrast‐enhanced DECT. Attenuation, radiomic features and DECT‐derived imaging parameters were evaluated by two experienced readers. We performed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi‐square statistic tests for data comparison. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and Cox regression tests were used to differentiate between mediastinal masses.Results: Of the 90 mediastinal masses, 49 (54%) were benign, including cases of thymic hyperplasia/thymic rebound (n = 10), mediastinitis (n = 16) and thymoma (n = 23). The remaining 41 (46%) lesions were classified as malignant, consisting of lymphoma (n = 28), mediastinal tumour (n = 4) and thymic carcinoma (n = 9). Significant differences were observed between benign and malignant mediastinal masses in all DECT‐derived parameters (p ≤ .001) and 38 radiomic features (p ≤ .044) obtained from contrast‐enhanced DECT. The combination of these methods achieved an area under the curve of .98 (95% CI, .893–1.000; p < .001) to differentiate between benign and malignant masses, with 100% sensitivity and 91% specificity. Throughout a follow‐up of 1800 days, a multiparametric model incorporating radiomic features, DECT parameters and gender showed promising prognostic power in predicting all‐cause mortality (c‐index = .8 [95% CI, .702–.890], p < .001).Conclusions: A multiparametric approach combining radiomic features and DECT‐derived imaging biomarkers allows for accurate and noninvasive differentiation between benign and malignant masses in the anterior mediastinum.

(1) Background: The relationship between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is bidirectional: NAFLD increases the risk of T2DM, and T2DM promotes the progression of the disease into non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). (2) Material and methods: We performed a retrospective, open study that included 59 patients with NAFLD and T2DM who were distributed into two groups: 44 (74.57%) patients were diagnosed with hepatic steatosis (HS) and 15 (25.42%) patients were diagnosed with NASH. (3) Results: Among the non-specific inflammatory biomarkers, serum ferritin (SF) and the neutrophil-percentage-to-albumin ratio (NPAR) showed higher and statistically significant mean values (p = 0.003 respectively p = 0.03) in the group of patients with NASH and T2DM. Conclusions: Consequently, it is essential to identify alternative markers for the inflammatory process, particularly in individuals with diabetes, as it is a key characteristic of NASH. This need arises from the desire to avoid the risks associated with liver biopsy procedures (LBP) and to prevent the unpredictable and unfavorable progression of NAFLD in patients with T2DM.