Steve Halligan

Steve Halligan

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Steve Halligan

Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

34Years (1993-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
23 August 2018 in Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CMChristian Maaser
Christian Maaser
ASAndreas Sturm
Andreas Sturm
SVStephan R Vavricka
Stephan R Vavricka
TKTorsten Kucharzik
Torsten Kucharzik
GFGionata Fiorino
Gionata Fiorino
E[European Crohn’s And Colitis Organisation [Ecco] And The European Society Of Gastrointestinal And Abdominal Radiology [Esgar]
European Crohn’s And Colitis Organisation [Ecco] And The European Society Of Gastrointestinal And Abdominal Radiology [Esgar]
This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognise the work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed to creating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy.

11 October 2016 in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
James P B O'ConnorJames P B O'Connor
James P B O'Connor
EAEric Ofori Aboagye
Eric Ofori Aboagye
JAJudith E. Adams
Judith E. Adams
HAHugo J. W. L. Aerts
Hugo J. W. L. Aerts
SBSally F. Barrington
Sally F. Barrington
JWJohn C. Waterton
John C. Waterton
Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are used extensively in drug development and cancer research, but important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers. A tailored 'roadmap' is required for the development of new IBs to be used either in clinical research or for decision-making in healthcare. In this Consensus statement, a group of experts assembled by CRUK and the EORTC present 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs. Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.

17 October 2017 in European Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RBRegina G. H. Beets-Tan
Regina G. H. Beets-Tan
DLDoenja M. J. Lambregts
Doenja M. J. Lambregts
MMMonique Maas
Monique Maas
SBShandra Bipat
Shandra Bipat
BBBrunella Barbaro
Brunella Barbaro
LBLennart Blomqvist
Lennart Blomqvist
Objectives To update the 2012 ESGAR consensus guidelines on the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. Methods Fourteen abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) participated in a consensus meeting, organised according to an adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) Chairs facilitated the meeting. 246 items were scored (comprising 229 items from the previous 2012 consensus and 17 additional items) and classified as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ (defined by ≥ 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Results Consensus was reached for 226 (92 %) of items. From these recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences and acquisition, criteria for MR imaging evaluation and reporting structure were constructed. The main additions to the 2012 consensus include recommendations regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging, criteria for nodal staging and a recommended structured report template. Conclusions These updated expert consensus recommendations should be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. Key Points • These guidelines present recommendations for staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 pelvic imaging experts. • Consensus was reached by the experts for 92 % of the 246 items discussed. • Practical guidelines for nodal staging are proposed. • A structured reporting template is presented.

1 August 2013 in Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JPJ. Panes
J. Panes
YBY. Bouhnik
Y. Bouhnik
WRW. Reinisch
W. Reinisch
JSJ. Stoker
J. Stoker
STStuart A. Taylor
Stuart A. Taylor
ALAndrea Laghi
Andrea Laghi
The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.

24 August 2018 in Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ASAndreas Sturm
Andreas Sturm
CMChristian Maaser
Christian Maaser
ECEmma Calabrese
Emma Calabrese
VAVito Annese
Vito Annese
GFGionata Fiorino
Gionata Fiorino
E[European Crohn’s And Colitis Organisation [Ecco] And The European Society Of Gastrointestinal And Abdominal Radiology [Esgar]
European Crohn’s And Colitis Organisation [Ecco] And The European Society Of Gastrointestinal And Abdominal Radiology [Esgar]
There are several scoring systems presently available to classify disease severity in ulcerative colitis [UC] within the multiple domains of disease activity, which aid objective assessment of disease and guide therapeutic and monitoring strategies.1,2 Although somewhat limited by subjective definitions, their strength lies in the potential to monitor patient progress over time.1

1 May 2011 in Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PPPerry J. Pickhardt
Perry J. Pickhardt
CHCesare Hassan
Cesare Hassan
SHSteve Halligan
Steve Halligan
RMRiccardo Marmo
Riccardo Marmo
Our findings suggest that, assuming a reasonable level of specificity, primary CT colonography may be more suitable than optical colonoscopy for the initial investigation of suspected colorectal ca... PurposeTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies assessing the sensitivity of both computed tomographic (CT) colonography and optical colonoscopy (OC) for colorectal can...