Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| derriford:vetting [2026/05/21 12:16] – created admin | derriford:vetting [2026/09/16 07:47] (current) – added GI vetting section a.wijnberg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| By pathology (malignancies): | By pathology (malignancies): | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==== GI Cancer ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | === New Suspected Cancer === | ||
| + | |||
| + | New presentations with suspected GI cancers can end up in the general vetting silo when requested as CT AP - CT colons go straight to GI. | ||
| + | These CT AP requests should be vetted as appropriate, | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Staging and Follow Up === | ||
| + | |||
| + | For staging and follow up CT TAP with arterial chest and PV abdomen and pelvis is recommended - the dual phase of the liver is felt helpful in assessing incidental haemangioma. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| ==== Suspected ENT Cancer ==== | ==== Suspected ENT Cancer ==== | ||
| This covers suspected upper aerodigestive tract, major salivary gland tumours, and neck lymphadenopathy with unknown primary. | This covers suspected upper aerodigestive tract, major salivary gland tumours, and neck lymphadenopathy with unknown primary. | ||
| + | MRI neck requests should be sent to the head and neck vetting silo " | ||
| If low risk: | If low risk: | ||
| Line 14: | Line 30: | ||
| If high risk: | If high risk: | ||
| * MRI neck with contrast | * MRI neck with contrast | ||
| - | * CT thorax with contrast | + | * CT thorax with contrast |
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| === Risk Stratification: | === Risk Stratification: | ||
| - | LOW RISK Patients | + | LOW RISK Patients: |
| - | - Have 2WW symptoms - e.g. referred otalgia, chronic lateralising throat pain, FOSIT | + | |
| - | - Have NORMAL examination including fibre-optic nasendoscopy. | + | |
| - | - No palpable suspicious neck lumps (by ENT/ | + | |
| - | - No previous H&N malignancy/ | + | |
| - | - Following multiple normal surveillance studies, can change to non-contrast surveillance. | + | |
| + | |||
| + | HIGH RISK Patients: | ||
| + | * Have abnormal examination on FNE - suspicious nasal, pharyngeal or laryngeal mass. | ||
| + | * Oral cavity lesion on MaxFacs examination. | ||
| + | * Abnormal neck lump (ideally confirmed as pathological on US). | ||
| + | * Post-treatment patients / suspected recurrence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| - | HIGH RISK Patients - MNECKC - contrast: | + | === MRI Head/Orbits === |
| - | - Have abnormal examination on FNE - suspicious nasal, pharyngeal or laryngeal mass. | + | |
| - | - Oral cavity lesion on MaxFacs examination. | + | |
| - | - Abnormal neck lump (ideally confirmed as pathological on US). | + | |
| - | - Post-treatment patients | + | |
| + | While these are often requested, MRI head is rarely indicated in suspected ENT cancers - MRI neck sequences are sufficient to assess skull base invasion and perineural spread. MRI head is only required where there is a scalp lesion with suspected skull invasion, or where there is the suspicion of intracranial metastasis indicated by suspicious neurological symptoms. Feel free to send these study to the HNREP vetting silo for H&N to assess. | ||