Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Magn Reson Imaging ; 2024 Apr 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38558490

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Automated 4D flow MRI valvular flow quantification without time-consuming manual segmentation might improve workflow. PURPOSE: Compare automated valve segmentation (AS) to manual (MS), and manually corrected automated segmentation (AMS), in corrected atrioventricular septum defect (c-AVSD) patients and healthy volunteers, for assessing net forward volume (NFV) and regurgitation fraction (RF). STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: 27 c-AVSD patients (median, 23 years; interquartile range, 16-31 years) and 24 healthy volunteers (25 years; 12.5-36.5 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Whole-heart 4D flow MRI and cine steady-state free precession at 3T. ASSESSMENT: After automatic valve tracking, valve annuli were segmented on time-resolved reformatted trans-valvular velocity images by AS, MS, and AMS. NFV was calculated for all valves, and RF for right and left atrioventricular valves (RAVV and LAVV). NFV variation (standard deviation divided by mean NFV) and NFV differences (NFV difference of a valve vs. mean NFV of other valves) expressed internal NFV consistency. STATISTICAL TESTS: Comparisons between methods were assessed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and intra/interobserver variability by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, with multiple testing correction. RESULTS: AMS mean analysis time was significantly shorter compared with MS (5.3 ± 1.6 minutes vs. 9.1 ± 2.5 minutes). MS NFV variation (6.0%) was significantly smaller compared with AMS (6.3%), and AS (8.2%). Median NFV difference of RAVV, LAVV, PV, and AoV between segmentation methods ranged from -0.7-1.0 mL, -0.5-2.8 mL, -1.1-3.6 mL, and - 3.1--2.1 mL, respectively. Median RAVV and LAVV RF, between 7.1%-7.5% and 3.8%-4.3%, respectively, were not significantly different between methods. Intraobserver/interobserver agreement for AMS and MS was strong-to-excellent for NFV and RF (ICC ≥0.88). DATA CONCLUSION: MS demonstrates strongest internal consistency, followed closely by AMS, and AS. Automated segmentation, with or without manual correction, can be considered for 4D flow MRI valvular flow quantification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

2.
Br J Radiol ; 97(1158): 1132-1138, 2024 May 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38627253

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with subsequent targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions has a critical role in the diagnostic workup of prostate cancer. The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of systematic biopsies, targeted biopsies, and the combination of both in prostate cancer detection. METHODS: From January 1, 2013 to June 1, 2022, biopsy-naïve and prior biopsy-negative patients who underwent both systematic and targeted biopsies were included. MRIs were evaluated according to PI-RADS with biopsy threshold set at PI-RADS ≥3. Systematic biopsies consisted of 8-12 cores, based on prostate volume. Overall prostate cancer and clinically significant cancer (Gleason Score ≥3 + 4) detection rates were stratified based on PI-RADS and location within the prostate, and compared between biopsy types using McNemar test. RESULTS: Among 867 patients, 615 had prostate cancer, with 434 clinically significant cases. Overall detection rates were: PI-RADS 3 48%, PI-RADS 4 72%, and PI-RADS 5 90%. Detection rates for clinically significant cancer were 21%, 53%, and 72%, respectively. The combination of biopsy methods was most accurate in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (P < .001). Targeted biopsies alone detected more clinically significant prostate cancer than systematic biopsies alone (43.1% vs 40.3%, P = .046). For posterior PI-RADS 5 lesions, no statistically significant difference was found between all biopsy methods. CONCLUSIONS: In the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, the combination of systematic and targeted biopsies proves most effective. Targeted biopsies rarely missed significant cancer for posterior PI-RADS 5 lesions, suggesting systematic biopsies could be reserved for instances where targeted biopsy results are negative. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study emphasizes on the efficacy of mpMRI and targeted biopsies in suspected prostate cancer in real-world clinical context. For PI-RADS 5 lesions, systematic biopsies provide limited clinical benefit and may only be necessary when targeted biopsy results are negative.


Assuntos
Biópsia Guiada por Imagem , Próstata , Neoplasias da Próstata , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/métodos , Próstata/diagnóstico por imagem , Próstata/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética Multiparamétrica/métodos , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Imagem Multimodal/métodos , Imagem por Ressonância Magnética Intervencionista/métodos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA