Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii · 2015
[Magnetic resonance semiotics of prostate cancer according to the PI-RADS classification. The clinical diagnostic algorithm of a study].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Korobkin A S, Shariya M A, Chaban A S, Voskanvan G A, Vinarov A Z
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: to elaborate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signs of prostate cancer (PC) in accordance with the PI-RADS classification during multiparametric MRI (mpMRI).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 89 men aged 20 to 82 years were examined. A control group consisted of 8 (9%) healthy volunteers younger than 30 years of age with no urological history to obtain control images and MRI plots and 20 (22.5%) men aged 26-76 years, whose morphological changes were inflammatory and hyperplastic. The second age-matched group included 61 (68.5%) patients diagnosed with prostate cancer at morphological examination. A set of studies included digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. All the patients underwent prostate mpMRI applying a 3.0 T Achieva MRI scanner (Philips, the Netherlands).
RESULTS: The patients have been found to have mpMRI signs that were typical of PC; its MRI semiotics according to the PI-RADS classification is presented. Each mpMRI procedure has been determined to be of importance and informative value in detecting PC.
CONCLUSION: The comprehensive mpMRI approach to diagnosing PC improves the quality and diagnostic value of prostate MRI.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 89 men aged 20 to 82 years were examined. A control group consisted of 8 (9%) healthy volunteers younger than 30 years of age with no urological history to obtain control images and MRI plots and 20 (22.5%) men aged 26-76 years, whose morphological changes were inflammatory and hyperplastic. The second age-matched group included 61 (68.5%) patients diagnosed with prostate cancer at morphological examination. A set of studies included digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. All the patients underwent prostate mpMRI applying a 3.0 T Achieva MRI scanner (Philips, the Netherlands).
RESULTS: The patients have been found to have mpMRI signs that were typical of PC; its MRI semiotics according to the PI-RADS classification is presented. Each mpMRI procedure has been determined to be of importance and informative value in detecting PC.
CONCLUSION: The comprehensive mpMRI approach to diagnosing PC improves the quality and diagnostic value of prostate MRI.