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
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Cancers (Basel) ; 14(19)2022 Sep 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36230647

RESUMO

Background: We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the new Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) score and its inter-observer variability. Secondly, we compared the detection rate of PI-RR and PET and analyzed the correlation between Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) levels and the PI-RR score. Methods: We included in the analysis 134 patients submitted to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for suspected local recurrence. The images were independently reviewed by two radiologists, assigning a value from 1 to 5 to the PI-RR score. Inter-observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy of the PI-RR score (compared to histopathological data, available for 19 patients) were calculated. The detection rate was compared to those of choline PET/CT (46 patients) and PSMA PET/CT (22 patients). The distribution of the PSA values in relation to the PI-RR scores was also analyzed. Results: The accuracy of the PI-RR score was 68.4%. The reporting agreement was excellent (K = 0.884, p < 0.001). The PI-RR showed a higher detection rate than choline PET/CT (69.6% versus 19.6%) and PSMA PET-CT (59.1% versus 22.7%). The analysis of the PSA distribution documented an increase in the PI-RR score as the PSA value increased. Conclusion: The excellent reproducibility of the PI-RR score supports its wide use in the clinical practice to standardize recurrence reporting. The detection rate of PI-RR was superior to that of PET, but was linked to the PSA level.

2.
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging ; 2(4): e200312, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33778611

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the four standardized categories for CT reporting proposed by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) to support a faster triage compared with real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is the reference standard for suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but has long reporting time (6-48 hours). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 569 thin-section CT examinations performed for patients suspected of having COVID-19 from February 27 to March 27, 2020 (peak of infection in Italy) was conducted. The imaging pattern was classified according to the statement by the RSNA as "typical," "indeterminate," "atypical," and "negative" and compared with RT-PCR for 460 patients. Interobserver variability in reporting between a senior and a junior radiologist was evaluated. Use of the vascular enlargement sign in indeterminate cases was also assessed. RESULTS: The diagnosis of COVID-19 was made in 45.9% (211/460) of patients. The "typical" pattern (n = 172) showed a sensitivity of 71.6%, a specificity of 91.6%, and a positive predictive value of 87.8% for COVID-19. The "atypical" (n = 67) and "negative" (n = 123) pattern demonstrated a positive predictive value of 89.6% and 86.2% for non-COVID-19, respectively. The "indeterminate" (n = 98) pattern was nonspecific, but vascular enlargement was most frequently found in patients with COVID-19 (86.1%; P < .001). Interobserver agreement was good for the "typical" and "negative" pattern and fair for "indeterminate" and "atypical" (κ = 0.5; P = .002). CONCLUSION: In an epidemic setting, the application of the four categories proposed by the RSNA provides a standardized diagnostic hypothesis, strongly linked to the RT-PCR results for the "typical," "atypical," and "negative" pattern. In the "indeterminate" pattern, the analysis of the vascular enlargement sign could facilitate the interpretation of imaging features.© RSNA, 2020.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA