Restrictive orbital myofibroblastic sarcoma in a cat--cross-sectional imaging (MRI & CT) appearance, treatment, and outcome.

A 16-year-old spayed female cat was evaluated for lagophthalmos and chronic exposure keratitis in both eyes. Ophthalmic examination revealed upper and lower eyelid entropion of the left eye (OS) and markedly decreased retropulsion, restricted eye movement, marked episcleral congestion, and severe keratitis of both eyes (OU). Magnetic resonance imaging of both orbits revealed extensive, irregular, contrast-enhancing tissue without evidence of osteolysis considered compatible with diffuse inflammatory tissue. Feline herpesvirus DNA was not detected in conjunctival samples. Partial temporary tarsorrhaphies were placed OU, and the cat was treated with topically administered erythromycin ointment OU, orally administered famciclovir and prednisolone, and sublingually administered buprenorphine. Little improvement was noted after 2 weeks. Six weeks after initial presentation, a left exenteration was performed and histopathology was consistent with idiopathic sclerosing orbital pseudotumor (ISOP). Ten weeks after initial presentation, the patient represented for weight loss and jaw pain. Computed tomography demonstrated disease progression in the right orbit and the patient was euthanized. Histopathology of the decalcified skull revealed an aggressive and highly infiltrative mass involving the right orbit with extension to the maxilla, hard palate, nasal cavity and gingiva most consistent with feline restrictive orbital myofibroblastic sarcoma (FROMS). Clinical data from this patient support the reclassification of ISOP as FROMS. MRI and CT may provide supportive evidence for FROMS, but histopathology is necessary for definitive diagnosis. Aggressive and early surgical treatment, including bilateral exenteration, with adjunctive radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy should be considered for patients with FROMS.

Multiscale image processing and antiscatter grids in digital radiography.

Scatter radiation is a source of noise and results in decreased signal-to-noise ratio and thus decreased image quality in digital radiography. We determined subjectively whether a digitally processed image made without a grid would be of similar quality to an image made with a grid but without image processing. Additionally the effects of exposure dose and of a using a grid with digital radiography on overall image quality were studied. Thoracic and abdominal radiographs of five dogs of various sizes were made. Four acquisition techniques were included (1) with a grid, standard exposure dose, digital image processing; (2) without a grid, standard exposure dose, digital image processing; (3) without a grid, half the exposure dose, digital image processing; and (4) with a grid, standard exposure dose, no digital image processing (to mimic a film-screen radiograph). Full-size radiographs as well as magnified images of specific anatomic regions were generated. Nine reviewers rated the overall image quality subjectively using a five-point scale. All digitally processed radiographs had higher overall scores than nondigitally processed radiographs regardless of patient size, exposure dose, or use of a grid. The images made at half the exposure dose had a slightly lower quality than those made at full dose, but this was only statistically significant in magnified images. Using a grid with digital image processing led to a slight but statistically significant increase in overall quality when compared with digitally processed images made without a grid but whether this increase in quality is clinically significant is unknown.

Digital image processing.

Image processing or digital image manipulation is one of the greatest advantages of digital radiography (DR). Preprocessing depends on the modality and corrects for system irregularities such as differential light detection efficiency, dead pixels, or dark noise. Processing is manipulation of the raw data just after acquisition. It is generally proprietary and specific to the DR vendor but encompasses manipulations such as unsharp mask filtering within two or more spatial frequency bands, histogram sliding and stretching, and gray scale rendition or lookup table application. These processing steps have a profound effect on the final appearance of the radiograph, but they can also lead to artifacts unique to digital systems. Postprocessing refers to manipulation of the final appearance of the radiograph by the end-user and does not involve alteration of the raw data.