scholarly journals Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Subclinical Synovitis and Tenosynovitis: A Diagnostic Performance Study

Clinics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongtao Bao ◽  
Yanchun Zhao ◽  
Shuqiang Chen ◽  
Xiaoyu Chen ◽  
Xiang Xu ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. 028418512095626
Author(s):  
Lu Yang ◽  
Yuchuan Tan ◽  
Hanli Dan ◽  
Lin Hu ◽  
Jiuquan Zhang

Background The diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) has not been studied systematically to date. Purpose To investigate the value of DWI combined with DCE-MRI quantitative analysis in the diagnosis of PCa. Material and Methods A systematic search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases without any restriction to language up to 10 December 2019. Studies that used a combination of DWI and DCE-MRI for diagnosing PCa were included. Results Nine studies with 778 participants were included. The combination of DWI and DCE-MRI provide accurate performance in diagnosing PCa with pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76–0.81), 0.85 (95% CI = 0.83–0.86), 6.58 (95% CI = 3.93–11.00), 0.24 (95% CI = 0.17–0.34), and 36.43 (95% CI = 14.41–92.12), respectively. The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9268. Moreover, 1.5-T MR scanners demonstrated a slightly better performance than 3.0-T scanners. Conclusion Combined DCE-MRI and DWI could demonstrate a highly accurate area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity for detecting PCa. More studies with large sample sizes are warranted to confirm these results.


Author(s):  
Rasha Wessam Abdel Rahman ◽  
Reham Mohammed Abd ElHai Refaie ◽  
Rasha Mohammed Kamal ◽  
Shaimaa Farouk Lasheen ◽  
Dalia Salaheldin Elmesidy

Abstract Background Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of female morbidity and mortality. Management options vary between lesions of BIRADS categories 3 and 4. Therefore, reliable differentiation would improve outcome. Although sonomammography and contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) remain the cornerstone for assessment of breast disease, additional, non-invasive techniques can be used to increase the efficiency of evaluation such as shear wave elastography (SWE) and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI). This prospective study included 66 breast lesions that were categorized as BIRADS 3 or 4 by ultrasound ± mammography. All lesions were evaluated by SWE, CE-MRI and DW-MRI. For SWE, lesions were evaluated by both qualitative and quantitative methods. For CE-MRI, both morphological and kinematic evaluations were done and for DW-MRI, both qualitative and quantitative assessments were studied. Results of all imaging modalities were correlated to histopathology. Results Thirty-seven out of the examined 66 lesions (56.06%) were categorised as BIRADS 3, out of which 1 (2.7%) turned out to be malignant on histopathology and 36 (97.29%) were proved benign. Twenty-nine (43.93%) were categorized as BIRADS 4, out of which 2 (6.89%) turned out to be benign on pathology and 27 (93.1%) were proved malignant. Morphological and kinematic evaluations of CE-MRI showed 92.59% and 92.86%sensitivity, 94.74% and 84.21% specificity, 92.59 and 81.25%PPV, 94.74 and 94.12% NPV, and 93.85% and 87.88% accuracy respectively. Color-coded scoring of SWE showed indices of 89.29%, 68.42%, 67.57%, 89.66%, and 77.27% respectively. The calculated cut-off value for Emax differentiating benign from malignant was 65.15 kpa, resulting in indices of 96.43%, 57.89%, 95.65%, 62.79%, and 74.24% respectively. For Eratio, the calculated cut-off value was 4.55, resulting in indices of 71.43%, 68.42%, 76.47%, 62.50% and 69.70% respectively. For qualitative evaluation of DW-MRI, indices were 78.57%, 65.79%, 62.86%, 80.65%, and 71.21% respectively. For ADC, the calculated cut-off value was 1.25 × 103 mm2/s, which resulted in indices of 75.00%, 84.21%, 82.05%, 77.78%, and 80.30% respectively. Conclusion CE-MRI showed the best diagnostic performance indices. While, SWE and DW-MRI present variable diagnostic performance, both techniques can be used as an adjunct to other imaging modalities to aid the clinical decision and increase its diagnostic confidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document