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











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Breast Imaging ; 3(4): 407-415, 2021 Aug 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38424792

RESUMO

The significance of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on screening and diagnostic breast MRI continues to be elucidated. Background parenchymal enhancement was initially deemed probably benign and followed or thought of as an artifact degrading the accuracy of breast cancer detection on breast MRI examinations. Subsequent research has focused on understanding the role of BPE regarding screening breast MRI. Today, there is growing evidence that a myriad of factors affect BPE, which in turn may influence patient outcomes. Additionally, BPE could represent an important risk factor for the future development of breast cancer. This article aims to describe the most up-to-date research on BPE as it relates to screening breast MRI in premenopausal women.

2.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 211(3): 548-556, 2018 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30040468

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare forward-projected model-based iterative reconstruction solution (FIRST), a newer fully iterative CT reconstruction method, with adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) in low-dose screening CT for lung cancer. Differences in image noise, image quality, and pulmonary nodule detection, size, and characterization were specifically evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Low-dose chest CT images obtained for 50 consecutive patients between December 2015 and January 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Images were reconstructed using FIRST and AIDR 3D for both lung and soft-tissue reconstruction. Images were independently reviewed to assess image noise, subjective image quality (with use of a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting far superior image quality; 2, superior quality; 3, equivalent quality; 4, inferior quality; and 5, far inferior quality), pulmonary nodule count, size of the largest pulmonary nodule, and characterization of the largest pulmonary nodule (i.e., solid, part solid, or ground glass). RESULTS: Across all 50 cases, measured image noise was lower with FIRST than with AIDR 3D (lung window, 44% reduction, 41 ± 7 vs 74 ± 8 HU, respectively; soft-tissue window, 32% reduction, 11 ± 2 vs 16 ± 2 HU, respectively). Readers subjectively rated images obtained with FIRST as comparable to images obtained with AIDR 3D (mean [± SD] Likert score for FIRST vs AIDR 3D, 3.2 ± 0.3 for soft-tissue reconstructions and 3.0 ± 0.3 for lung reconstructions). For each reader, very good agreement regarding nodule count was noted between FIRST and AIDR 3D (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.83 for reader 1 and 0.78 for reader 2). Excellent agreement regarding nodule size (ICC, 0.99 for reader 1 and 0.99 for reader 2) and characterization of the largest nodule (kappa value, 0.92 for reader 1 and 0.82 for reader 2) also existed. CONCLUSION: Images reconstructed with FIRST are superior to those reconstructed AIDR 3D with regard to image noise and are equivalent with regard to subjective image quality, pulmonary nodule count, and nodule characterization.


Assuntos
Processamento de Imagem Assistida por Computador , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagem , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Algoritmos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Doses de Radiação , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estudos Retrospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA