Cargando…
Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic value of 3.0T MR for differentiating benign from malignant primary retroperitoneal tumors (RPTs). METHODS: A total of 81 patients (44 males and 37 females; 31 benign and 50 malignant lesions) who underwent surgical resection for RPT were evaluated retrospective...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8798918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35116826 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2019.05.16 |
_version_ | 1784641939109314560 |
---|---|
author | Zhu, Zheng Zhao, Yanfeng Zhao, Xin-Ming Wang, Xiaoyi Dai, Jingrui Ouyang, Han Zhou, Chunwu |
author_facet | Zhu, Zheng Zhao, Yanfeng Zhao, Xin-Ming Wang, Xiaoyi Dai, Jingrui Ouyang, Han Zhou, Chunwu |
author_sort | Zhu, Zheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic value of 3.0T MR for differentiating benign from malignant primary retroperitoneal tumors (RPTs). METHODS: A total of 81 patients (44 males and 37 females; 31 benign and 50 malignant lesions) who underwent surgical resection for RPT were evaluated retrospectively. The MR features included lesion location, number, size, margin, surfaces, texture (solid or non-solid), MR(hyperintense) and MR(hypointense) signal intensity, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and the presence of fat, necrosis and hemorrhage. Categorical variables were tested with a χ(2) test or Fisher’s exact test for the diagnostic indices and the sensitivity and specificity of MR characteristics. RESULTS: Using six indices (ill-defined margins, irregular surface, major diameter >5.85 cm, minor diameter >5.35 cm, solid texture and ADC <1.2×10(–3) mm(2)/s) to diagnose malignant RPT, sensitivity and specificity were 36.0% vs. 93.5%, 68.0% vs. 58.1%, 80.0% vs. 64.5%, 64.0% vs. 90.3%, 65.0% vs. 63.5%, and 64.0% vs. 74.2%, respectively. Combining all those radiological features into a comprehensive evaluation, sensitivity and specificity were 82.0% and 77.4%, respectively (χ(2)=27.984, P<0.001) when scores ≥4. Other findings had no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: More accurate differential diagnosis of primary RPTs could be made through comprehensive analysis of combined diagnostic indices. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8798918 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | AME Publishing Company |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87989182022-02-02 Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors Zhu, Zheng Zhao, Yanfeng Zhao, Xin-Ming Wang, Xiaoyi Dai, Jingrui Ouyang, Han Zhou, Chunwu Transl Cancer Res Original Article BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic value of 3.0T MR for differentiating benign from malignant primary retroperitoneal tumors (RPTs). METHODS: A total of 81 patients (44 males and 37 females; 31 benign and 50 malignant lesions) who underwent surgical resection for RPT were evaluated retrospectively. The MR features included lesion location, number, size, margin, surfaces, texture (solid or non-solid), MR(hyperintense) and MR(hypointense) signal intensity, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and the presence of fat, necrosis and hemorrhage. Categorical variables were tested with a χ(2) test or Fisher’s exact test for the diagnostic indices and the sensitivity and specificity of MR characteristics. RESULTS: Using six indices (ill-defined margins, irregular surface, major diameter >5.85 cm, minor diameter >5.35 cm, solid texture and ADC <1.2×10(–3) mm(2)/s) to diagnose malignant RPT, sensitivity and specificity were 36.0% vs. 93.5%, 68.0% vs. 58.1%, 80.0% vs. 64.5%, 64.0% vs. 90.3%, 65.0% vs. 63.5%, and 64.0% vs. 74.2%, respectively. Combining all those radiological features into a comprehensive evaluation, sensitivity and specificity were 82.0% and 77.4%, respectively (χ(2)=27.984, P<0.001) when scores ≥4. Other findings had no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: More accurate differential diagnosis of primary RPTs could be made through comprehensive analysis of combined diagnostic indices. AME Publishing Company 2019-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8798918/ /pubmed/35116826 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2019.05.16 Text en 2019 Translational Cancer Research. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Zhu, Zheng Zhao, Yanfeng Zhao, Xin-Ming Wang, Xiaoyi Dai, Jingrui Ouyang, Han Zhou, Chunwu Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors |
title | Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors |
title_full | Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors |
title_fullStr | Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors |
title_full_unstemmed | Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors |
title_short | Value of 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors |
title_sort | value of 3.0t magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal tumors |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8798918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35116826 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2019.05.16 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhuzheng valueof30tmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisofretroperitonealtumors AT zhaoyanfeng valueof30tmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisofretroperitonealtumors AT zhaoxinming valueof30tmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisofretroperitonealtumors AT wangxiaoyi valueof30tmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisofretroperitonealtumors AT daijingrui valueof30tmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisofretroperitonealtumors AT ouyanghan valueof30tmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisofretroperitonealtumors AT zhouchunwu valueof30tmagneticresonanceimaginginthediagnosisofretroperitonealtumors |