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










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 22224, 2021 11 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34782698

RESUMEN

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor's system. We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination, for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23.0% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3 to 87.6% (p < 0.0001), specificity from 87.8 to 94.6% (p = 0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p = 0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor's systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico , Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Mama/patología , Mamografía/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Biomarcadores de Tumor , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/etiología , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Medios de Contraste , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Mamografía/normas , Tamizaje Masivo , Persona de Mediana Edad , Curva ROC , Intensificación de Imagen Radiográfica , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X
2.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd ; 1642020 08 25.
Artículo en Holandés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32940977

RESUMEN

At the so-called in-bore, MRI-guided prostate biopsy, the radiologist in the MRI suite manually directs a rectal biopsy needle guide at an abnormality confirmed by a previous prostate MRI. This manual technique of taking a biopsy is time-consuming and thus rather expensive, as the patient has to be moved in and out of the MRI several times. Since 2015, a remote-controlled manipulator robot (RCM) has been available. Using this apparatus the radiologist is able to position the needle guide remotely. This technique is simple to learn and less time-consuming than the in-bore biopsy without the RCM. In this article we discuss the findings from the first 201 patients in the Netherlands from whom robot-guided prostate biopsies have been taken.


Asunto(s)
Biopsia con Aguja/métodos , Biopsia Guiada por Imagen/métodos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Robótica/métodos , Humanos , Masculino , Países Bajos , Recto
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA