Magnetic resonance neurography in the management of trigeminal neuralgia: a cohort study of 55 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the usefulness of magnetic resonance neurography (MRN) in the diagnosis and management of trigeminal neuralgia (TN). STUDY DESIGN: In total, 55 patients clinically diagnosed with TN were imaged with 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging. Images were reconstructed to show the full course of the trigeminal nerve. Clinical findings included mean duration of symptoms (41.99 months) and mean visual analog scale pain intensity (5.98). Final diagnoses were microvascular compression (19), inflammation (21), microvascular compression with inflammation (5), normal (5), tumor (1), peripheral nerve injury (2), and multiple sclerosis (2). RESULTS: MRN had substantial impact on diagnosis and treatment in 56.4% of cases. A total of 33 patients underwent intervention for pain. MRN had substantial impact on 54.5% of the treated patients. The correlation between MRN results and intervention response was excellent in 19 patients (57.6%) and moderate in 14 (42.4%). Pain was reduced after surgery or interventional procedure in most cases (75.8%). CONCLUSIONS: MRN is suitable for the diagnosis of clinical TN with beneficial impact on diagnosis and clinical management and moderate-to-excellent correlation with intervention response. Diagnosis of TN should focus not only on microvascular compression but also on the conditions of the peripheral branches of the trigeminal nerve.

Comparing cryoablation and microwave ablation for the treatment of patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer.

The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of cryoablation (CA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC treated with CA (n=45) or MWA (n=56) were enrolled in the present study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) time and adverse events (AEs). The median PFS times between the two groups were not significantly different (P=0.36): CA, 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5-12.4] vs. MWA, 11 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.4). The OS times between the two groups were also not significantly different (P=0.07): CA, 27.5 months (95% CI, 22.8-31.2 months) vs. MWA, 18 months (95% CI, 12.5-23.5). For larger tumors (>3 cm), patients treated with MWA had significantly longer median PFS (P=0.04; MWA, 10.5 months vs. CA, 7.0 months) and OS times (P=0.04; MWA, 24.5 months vs. CA, 14.5 months) compared patients treated with CA. However, for smaller tumors (≤3 cm), median PFS (P=0.79; MWA, 11.0 months vs. CA, 13.0 months) and OS times (P=0.39; MWA, 30.0 months vs. CA, 26.5 months) between the two groups did not differ significantly. The incidence rates of AEs were similar in the two groups (P>0.05). The number of applicators, tumor size and length of the lung traversed by applicators were associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax and intra-pulmonary hemorrhage in the two groups. Treatment with CA resulted in significantly less intraprocedural pain compared with treatment with MWA (P=0.001). Overall, the present study demonstrated that CA and MWA were comparably safe and effective procedures for the treatment of small tumors. However, treatment with MWA was superior compared with CA for the treatment of large tumors.

Quantitative measurement of contrast enhancement of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma on clinical MDCT.

AIM: To investigate contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for discriminating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from normal esophagus and evaluating outcomes within tumors after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS: Sixty-four patients with surgical ESCC served as group A, and underwent thoracic contrast-enhanced scan with 16-section multidetector row CT 1 wk before surgery. Thirty-five patients with advanced ESCC receiving 4-wk CRT and showing response to CRT served as group B, and underwent CT scans similar with group A 4 wk after completion of CRT. In group A, differences in CT attenuation values (in HU) between the preoperative ESCC and background normal esophageal wall (delta CT(1)), or between different background normal esophageal walls (delta CT(2)) were compared. Furthermore, delta CT(1) between group A and B was also compared. RESULTS: In group A, mean delta CT(1) was higher than delta CT(2) (23.86 ± 10.59 HU vs 6.24 ± 3.06 HU, P < 0.05). When a delta CT(1) of 10.025 HU was employed at a cut-off value to discriminate ESCC from normal esophagus, a sensitivity of 89.1% and specificity of 90.6% were achieved. Mean delta CT(1) was lower in group B than in group A (9.25 ± 10.86 vs 23.86 ± 10.59, P < 0.05), and a delta CT(1) of 15.45 HU was obtained at a cut-off value to assess the CRT changes with a sensitivity of 76.6% and specificity of 77.1%. CONCLUSION: CECT might be a clinical technique for discriminating ESCC from normal esophagus, and evaluating outcome in the tumors treated with CRT.