Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017
Detection of soft-tissue abscess: Comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging to contrast-enhanced MRI.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Chun Chang Woo, Jung Joon-Yong, Baik Jun Seung, Jee Won-Hee, Kim Sun Ki, Shin Seung Han
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performances of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-combined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed without intravenous contrast material with gadolinium contrast material-enhanced (CE) MRI for diagnosing soft-tissue abscesses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 119 patients (mean age: 56 years) with skin and soft-tissue infection who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI with DWI (b = 0-800) were included. Two readers independently reviewed both image sets-nonenhanced conventional MR images (NECI)+DWI, and NECI+contrast enhanced fat-suppressed T1 -weighted imaging (CEFST1 )-for the presence of abscess. To compare the diagnostic performance for diagnosing abscess between NECI+DWI, and NECI+CEFST1 , McNemar tests for sensitivity and specificity, and areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC) analyses, were performed. Interobserver agreements (κ) were calculated for each image set.
RESULTS: Forty of 119 patients were confirmed with abscess. Sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% and 88.6% for NECI+DWI, and 82.5% and 89.9% for NECI+CEFST1 in reader 1, whereas 77.5% and 88.6% for NECI+DWI, and 80.0% and 84.8% for NECI+CEFST1 in reader 2, respectively. There was no significant difference in sensitivities and specificities between NECI+DWI and NECI+CEFST1 (reader 1: P = 0.453, P = 0.999, reader 2: P = 0.999, P = 0.453, respectively). Likewise, AUC analyses demonstrated no significant difference between NECI+DWI and NECI+CEFST1 (P = 0.53 in reader 1, P = 0.97 in reader 2). Interobserver agreement between the two readers was substantial in both image sets: 0.80 (NECI+DWI), and 0.76 (NECI+CEFST1 ).
CONCLUSION: Noncontrast-enhanced MRI with DWI has comparable diagnostic performance to contrast-enhanced MRI for diagnosing soft-tissue abscesses.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:60-68.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 119 patients (mean age: 56 years) with skin and soft-tissue infection who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI with DWI (b = 0-800) were included. Two readers independently reviewed both image sets-nonenhanced conventional MR images (NECI)+DWI, and NECI+contrast enhanced fat-suppressed T1 -weighted imaging (CEFST1 )-for the presence of abscess. To compare the diagnostic performance for diagnosing abscess between NECI+DWI, and NECI+CEFST1 , McNemar tests for sensitivity and specificity, and areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC) analyses, were performed. Interobserver agreements (κ) were calculated for each image set.
RESULTS: Forty of 119 patients were confirmed with abscess. Sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% and 88.6% for NECI+DWI, and 82.5% and 89.9% for NECI+CEFST1 in reader 1, whereas 77.5% and 88.6% for NECI+DWI, and 80.0% and 84.8% for NECI+CEFST1 in reader 2, respectively. There was no significant difference in sensitivities and specificities between NECI+DWI and NECI+CEFST1 (reader 1: P = 0.453, P = 0.999, reader 2: P = 0.999, P = 0.453, respectively). Likewise, AUC analyses demonstrated no significant difference between NECI+DWI and NECI+CEFST1 (P = 0.53 in reader 1, P = 0.97 in reader 2). Interobserver agreement between the two readers was substantial in both image sets: 0.80 (NECI+DWI), and 0.76 (NECI+CEFST1 ).
CONCLUSION: Noncontrast-enhanced MRI with DWI has comparable diagnostic performance to contrast-enhanced MRI for diagnosing soft-tissue abscesses.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:60-68.