Clinical radiology · 2020
Investigation of clinical utility of contrast-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Nishio N, Kido A, Kurata Y, Minami M, Tokunaga K, Honda M, Mandai M, Togashi K
Аннотация
AIM: To investigate whether contrast-enhanced (CE)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves identification of implantation site of ectopic pregnancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 63 patients in whom implantation sites had been confirmed at histopathology. Two expert radiologists for gynaecological imaging and two inexpert radiologists independently reviewed non-CE MRI and a combination of non-CE and CE-MRI (non-CE+CE-MRI), then determined implantation site with a confidence level. The following MRI features were also evaluated: extrauterine gestational sac (GS)-like structure (shape, signal intensities at T1-weighted imaging [WI], T2WI, and diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], presence of the three rings appearance, and distinct low intensity areas at T2WI, presence of tree or dot-like components, degree of contrast enhancement), fallopian tube (dilatation, dilatation with haematoma, degree of contrast enhancement, enhanced components within the tube), and ascites. These findings were compared for non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI data, and for expert and inexpert groups.
RESULTS: The expert group identified implantation sites correctly in 58/63 (92%) cases for non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI. In the inexpert group, the correct identification was improved from 54/63 (86%) using non-CE MRI to 58/63 (92%) using non-CE+CE-MRI, but was not significant (p=0.29). In comparison between non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI, dilation of the fallopian tubes was observed more frequently (p=0.004) and the confidence level was elevated significantly in the non-CE+CE-MRI (p<0.0001) in the inexpert group. Intergroup comparison revealed that confidence level was significantly higher in the expert group than in the inexpert group using non-CE MRI (p<0.0001), although the difference was not significant at non-CE+CE MRI (p=0.49).
CONCLUSION: CE-MRI did not significantly improve correct identification of ectopic pregnancy implantation sites, although the addition of contrast enhancement did enable inexpert radiologists to diagnose confidently.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 63 patients in whom implantation sites had been confirmed at histopathology. Two expert radiologists for gynaecological imaging and two inexpert radiologists independently reviewed non-CE MRI and a combination of non-CE and CE-MRI (non-CE+CE-MRI), then determined implantation site with a confidence level. The following MRI features were also evaluated: extrauterine gestational sac (GS)-like structure (shape, signal intensities at T1-weighted imaging [WI], T2WI, and diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], presence of the three rings appearance, and distinct low intensity areas at T2WI, presence of tree or dot-like components, degree of contrast enhancement), fallopian tube (dilatation, dilatation with haematoma, degree of contrast enhancement, enhanced components within the tube), and ascites. These findings were compared for non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI data, and for expert and inexpert groups.
RESULTS: The expert group identified implantation sites correctly in 58/63 (92%) cases for non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI. In the inexpert group, the correct identification was improved from 54/63 (86%) using non-CE MRI to 58/63 (92%) using non-CE+CE-MRI, but was not significant (p=0.29). In comparison between non-CE and non-CE+CE-MRI, dilation of the fallopian tubes was observed more frequently (p=0.004) and the confidence level was elevated significantly in the non-CE+CE-MRI (p<0.0001) in the inexpert group. Intergroup comparison revealed that confidence level was significantly higher in the expert group than in the inexpert group using non-CE MRI (p<0.0001), although the difference was not significant at non-CE+CE MRI (p=0.49).
CONCLUSION: CE-MRI did not significantly improve correct identification of ectopic pregnancy implantation sites, although the addition of contrast enhancement did enable inexpert radiologists to diagnose confidently.