Journal of computer assisted tomography · 2023
Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings Contribute to Differentiating Solid- and Nonsolid-Type Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma in Maxillary Sinus.
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.
Wang Yifan, Ji Yanping, Guo Linying, Wang Yuzhe, Sha Yan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the imaging features of maxillary sinus adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to investigate the imaging differences between solid and nonsolid maxillary sinus ACC.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 40 cases of histopathologically confirmed ACC of the maxillary sinus. All the patients underwent CT and MRI. Based on the histopathological characteristics, the patients were classified into 2 groups: ( a ) solid maxillary sinus ACC (n = 16) and ( b ) nonsolid maxillary sinus ACC (n = 24). Imaging features such as tumor size, morphology, internal structure, margin, type of bone destruction, signal intensity, enhancement changes, and perineural tumor spread on CT and MRI, were evaluated. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was measured. Comparisons of imaging features and ADC values were performed between the solid and nonsolid maxillary sinus ACC using χ 2 and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: The internal structure, margin, type of bone destruction, and degree of enhancement significantly differed between solid and nonsolid maxillary sinus ACC (all P < 0.05). The ADC of the solid maxillary sinus ACC was considerably lower than that of the nonsolid maxillary sinus ( P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography and MRI may aid in the differentiation of solid and nonsolid types of maxillary sinus ACC.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 40 cases of histopathologically confirmed ACC of the maxillary sinus. All the patients underwent CT and MRI. Based on the histopathological characteristics, the patients were classified into 2 groups: ( a ) solid maxillary sinus ACC (n = 16) and ( b ) nonsolid maxillary sinus ACC (n = 24). Imaging features such as tumor size, morphology, internal structure, margin, type of bone destruction, signal intensity, enhancement changes, and perineural tumor spread on CT and MRI, were evaluated. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was measured. Comparisons of imaging features and ADC values were performed between the solid and nonsolid maxillary sinus ACC using χ 2 and nonparametric tests.
RESULTS: The internal structure, margin, type of bone destruction, and degree of enhancement significantly differed between solid and nonsolid maxillary sinus ACC (all P < 0.05). The ADC of the solid maxillary sinus ACC was considerably lower than that of the nonsolid maxillary sinus ( P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography and MRI may aid in the differentiation of solid and nonsolid types of maxillary sinus ACC.