European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
Retrospective analysis of radiological investigation of surgically excised head and neck lipomas.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Schranz Amy L, Riordan Fiona, Dolan Roisin, Lawlor Catriona, Morrison Colin, O'Toole Gary, Killeen Ronan, McNeill Graeme, O'Donohoe Rory, Moran Tom, O'Duffy Fergal
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Differentiating benign lipomas from malignant causes is challenging and preoperative investigative guidelines are not well-defined. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively identify cases of head and neck lipomas that were surgically resected over a 5-year period and to identify the radiological modality chosen and features discussed in the final report. Multidisciplinary outcomes and pathology reports were examined with a view to identifying high risk features of a lipoma to aid in future risk stratification.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of pathology characteristics, radiological features (modality, size, calcifications, septations, globular/nodular foci), multidisciplinary discussion and history of presenting complaint was performed.
RESULTS: Two liposarcomas and 138 lipomas were identified. Twenty-two percent of all lipomas received radiological investigation. Twenty-two percent of imaging referrals were possibly inappropriate. Furthermore, radiological features suggestive of malignancy were not present in the final radiology report, X2 = 28.8, p < 0.0001.
CONCLUSION: As expected, the incidence of liposarcoma is low. There is limited awareness of radiology referral guidelines superimposed with a tendency to over-investigate lipomas. Furthermore, radiological features suggestive of malignancy were inconsistently reported on and not documented in multidisciplinary discussions. Therefore, we propose a multidisciplinary checklist for referring physicians and radiologists to aid in diagnostic work-up.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of pathology characteristics, radiological features (modality, size, calcifications, septations, globular/nodular foci), multidisciplinary discussion and history of presenting complaint was performed.
RESULTS: Two liposarcomas and 138 lipomas were identified. Twenty-two percent of all lipomas received radiological investigation. Twenty-two percent of imaging referrals were possibly inappropriate. Furthermore, radiological features suggestive of malignancy were not present in the final radiology report, X2 = 28.8, p < 0.0001.
CONCLUSION: As expected, the incidence of liposarcoma is low. There is limited awareness of radiology referral guidelines superimposed with a tendency to over-investigate lipomas. Furthermore, radiological features suggestive of malignancy were inconsistently reported on and not documented in multidisciplinary discussions. Therefore, we propose a multidisciplinary checklist for referring physicians and radiologists to aid in diagnostic work-up.