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.
J Neuroimaging ; 27(4): 365-371, 2017 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28194831

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To compare volumetric results from NeuroQuant® and FreeSurfer in a service member setting. Since the advent of medical imaging, quantification of brain anatomy has been a major research and clinical effort. Rapid advancement of methods to automate quantification and to deploy this information into clinical practice has surfaced in recent years. NeuroQuant® is one such tool that has recently been used in clinical settings. Accurate volumetric data are useful in many clinical indications; therefore, it is important to assess the intermethod reliability and concurrent validity of similar volume quantifying tools. METHODS: Volumetric data from 148 U.S. service members across three different experimental groups participating in a study of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) were examined. Groups included mTBI (n = 71), posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 22), or a noncranial orthopedic injury (n = 55). Correlation coefficients and nonparametric group mean comparisons were used to assess reliability and concurrent validity, respectively. RESULTS: Comparison of these methods across our entire sample demonstrates generally fair to excellent reliability as evidenced by large intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = .4 to .99), but little concurrent validity as evidenced by significantly different Mann-Whitney U comparisons for 26 of 30 brain structures measured. CONCLUSION: While reliability between the two segmenting tools is fair to excellent, volumetric outcomes are statistically different between the two methods. As suggested by both developers, structure segmentation should be visually verified prior to clinical use and rigor should be used when interpreting results generated by either method.


Assuntos
Lesões Encefálicas/diagnóstico por imagem , Encéfalo/diagnóstico por imagem , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Processamento de Imagem Assistida por Computador , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Tamanho do Órgão/fisiologia , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Adulto Jovem
2.
Abdom Imaging ; 40(8): 3029-42, 2015 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26194812

RESUMO

Surgical resection of colorectal metastatic disease has increased as surgeons have adopted a more aggressive ideology. Current exclusion criteria are patients for whom a negative resection margin is not feasible or a future liver remnant (FLR) of greater than 20% is not achievable. The goal of preoperative imaging is to identify the number and distribution of liver metastases, in addition to establishing their relation to relevant intrahepatic structures. FLR can be calculated utilizing cross-sectional imaging to select out patients at risk for hepatic dysfunction after resection. MRI, specifically with gadoxetic acid contrast, is currently the preferred modality for assessment of hepatic involvement for patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, to include those who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Employment of liver-directed therapies has recently expanded and they may provide an alternative to hepatectomy in order to obtain locoregional control in poor surgical candidates or convert patients with initially unresectable disease into surgical candidates.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/patologia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundário , Fígado/diagnóstico por imagem , Fígado/patologia , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Meios de Contraste , Gadolínio DTPA , Humanos , Aumento da Imagem , Neoplasias Hepáticas/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA