MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1148/radiology.167.1.3347723

Медицинская библиотека · Radiology · 1988

Invasion of laryngeal cartilage by cancer: comparison of CT and MR imaging.

Castelijns J A, Gerritsen G J, Kaiser M C, Valk J, van Zanten T E, Golding R G, Meyer C J, van Hattum L H, Sprenger M, Bezemer P D

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Forty-two patients with laryngeal carcinomas were examined with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. The accuracy of both CT and MR imaging in the depiction of cartilage invasion was evaluated in 16 patients by comparing findings at CT and MR with pathologic findings. Calcified cartilage that has been invaded by cancer is frequently seen on CT scans as having an intact contour. Tumor approaching nonossified cartilage may simulate cartilage invasion. On T1-weighted MR images, invaded marrow of ossified cartilage is of intermediate signal intensity, allowing it to be differentiated from normal bone marrow. On proton-density images, tumor is of increased signal intensity, which allows it to be differentiated from nonossified cartilage. In our experience, the specificities of CT and MR imaging were approximately equal (91% and 88%, respectively), but CT had a considerably lower sensitivity than MR (46% vs. 89%). Gross movement artifacts, which resulted in nondiagnostic images, occurred in 16% of the MR examinations. MR imaging is recommended as the modality of choice in the diagnosis of cartilage invasion.

Для цитирования: Castelijns J A, Gerritsen G J, Kaiser M C, Valk J, van Zanten T E, Golding R G, Meyer C J, van Hattum L H, Sprenger M, Bezemer P D. Invasion of laryngeal cartilage by cancer: comparison of CT and MR imaging.. Radiology. 1988. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.167.1.3347723.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.