Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I Diagnosed by Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement.

A 32-year-old developmentally delayed man presenting with dyspnea was found to have severe aortic and mitral valve stenosis. After double valve replacement, unique histologic findings prompted a genetics evaluation, ultimately leading to the diagnosis of mucopolysaccharidosis type I, a rare lysosomal storage disorder with high rates of cardiac manifestations. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Current Radiographic Iodinated Contrast Agents.

Millions of radiologic examinations requiring the use of iodinated contrast are performed yearly in North America. Triiodobenzoic acid, the contrast agent molecule currently in use, is a benzene ring covalently bonded to the 3 iodine atoms. Iodinated contrast media can be divided in 4 categories: ionic monomers, ionic dimers, nonionic monomer, and nonionic dimers. Currently, second- and third-generation nonionic low-osmolar and iso-osmolar contrast media are used in clinical practice. The search for a safer and more effective iodinated contrast agents remains an ongoing challenge and important research topic.

Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and to compare with those for density assessment using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiologists assessed breast density four times in 104 mammographic examinations: twice using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and twice using the fifth edition. The intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment based on each guideline were determined and compared. The density distribution pattern under each of the four BI-RADS density categories using each guideline was also noted and compared. RESULTS: The intrareader agreement for density assessment using the fifth-edition criteria was lower than that using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.0179). The overall intrareader agreement (weighted kappa) using the old criteria was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97). The overall intrareader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00). The interreader agreement values obtained using the fifth-edition criteria were also lower than those obtained using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.006). The overall interreader agreement using the old BI-RADS criteria was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69), whereas the overall interreader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61). Overall a higher number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with the intra- and interreader agreements obtained using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines, the intra- and interreader agreements were lower using the fifth-edition guidelines. An increased number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used.

Comparative accuracy of preoperative tumor size assessment on mammography, sonography, and MRI: Is the accuracy affected by breast density or cancer subtype?

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of preoperative breast tumor size measurements obtained on three imaging modalities (mammography [MM], sonography [US], and MRI) with those obtained on final pathologic examination for different breast densities and various tumor types. METHODS: Records from patients who underwent breast cancer lumpectomy between 2008 and 2012 and in whom tumor was seen on all three imaging modalities were retrospectively reviewed for maximum tumor size measurements. Patients with positive tumor margins and those who had undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. Tumor size measurements obtained on the three imaging modalities were compared for accuracy with those obtained during the final pathologic examination. Differences were analyzed for the whole group and for subgroups according to breast density and tumor type. RESULTS: In total, 57 patients were included, in whom wire-localization lumpectomy was performed without neoadjuvant chemotherapy; negative surgical margins for tumor were obtained, and tumor was preoperatively visualized on all three imaging modalities. The mean (± SEM) tumor size measured on MRI was significantly greater than that measured on pathology (p < 0.001), whereas the sizes measured on US and MM were not statistically significantly different from that measured on pathology (p = 0.62 and p = 0.57). Tumor size measured on MRI was greater than that measured on both US and MM (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). Compared with the measurements obtained on pathology, that obtained on US showed moderate agreement (Lin concordance correlation coefficient [CCC], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.82); poorer agreement was found for the sizes obtained on MM (CCC, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.72) and MRI (CCC, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.65). No difference in comparative accuracy of size measurement was noted between dense and nondense breast tissue. MRI overestimated tumor size in ductal cancers (p < 0.001) and slightly underestimated it in lobular cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI significantly overestimated tumor size. Measurements obtained on US and MM were more accurate irrespective of breast density, with US measurements being slightly more accurate than MM measurements.