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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Zheng, Zhao, Yanfeng, Zhao, Xin-Ming, Wang, Xiaoyi, Dai, Jingrui, Ouyang, Han, Zhou, Chunwu
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