Clinical imaging · 2021
Use of non-contrast MR in diagnosing secondary lymphedema of the upper extremities.
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.
Kim Geunwon, Donohoe Kevin, Smith Martin P, Hamaguchi Ryoko, Johnson Anna Rose, Singhal Dhruv, Tsai Leo L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to determine if a combination of dermal thickening and subcutaneous fluid honeycombing on non-contrast MRI, termed the dermal rim sign (DRS), can be diagnostically analogous to dermal backflow seen on lymphoscintigraphy in patients with secondary upper extremity lymphedema.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Upper extremity MRI and lymphoscintigraphy were performed on patients referred to a multidisciplinary lymphedema clinic for suspicion of secondary lymphedema. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of DRS on MRI in detecting dermal backflow on lymphoscintigraphy and the correlation between DRS, Indocyanine Green (ICG) lymphography, bioimpedence L-Dex® ratio and MRI Lymphedema Staging were calculated. Weighted interobserver agreements on the presence and location of DRS on MRI were calculated.
RESULTS: Of the 45 patients in the study, 91.1% (41/45) of patients had history of breast cancer. The average age was 58.4 ± 10.5 years, with a mean symptom duration of 4.7 ± 4.4 years. The mean BMI was 30.5 ± 7.0 kg/m2. Interobserver agreement on the presence and the extent of DRS on MRI was 0.93 [95% confidence-interval: 0.80-1]. DRS was present in 97% (32/33) of patients who demonstrated dermal backflow on lymphoscintigraphy. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of DRS were 96.6% [81.7%-99.9%], and 75.0% [47.6%-92.7%], 87.5% [74.9%-94.3%], and 92.3% [63.1%-98.8%]. DRS was associated with severity on ICG lymphography and bioimpedance (both p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: DRS on non-contrast MRI is highly predictive of dermal backflow and correlates with clinical measures of lymphedema severity. DRS may be used as an independent diagnostic biomarker to identify patients who would benefit from dedicated exams.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Upper extremity MRI and lymphoscintigraphy were performed on patients referred to a multidisciplinary lymphedema clinic for suspicion of secondary lymphedema. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of DRS on MRI in detecting dermal backflow on lymphoscintigraphy and the correlation between DRS, Indocyanine Green (ICG) lymphography, bioimpedence L-Dex® ratio and MRI Lymphedema Staging were calculated. Weighted interobserver agreements on the presence and location of DRS on MRI were calculated.
RESULTS: Of the 45 patients in the study, 91.1% (41/45) of patients had history of breast cancer. The average age was 58.4 ± 10.5 years, with a mean symptom duration of 4.7 ± 4.4 years. The mean BMI was 30.5 ± 7.0 kg/m2. Interobserver agreement on the presence and the extent of DRS on MRI was 0.93 [95% confidence-interval: 0.80-1]. DRS was present in 97% (32/33) of patients who demonstrated dermal backflow on lymphoscintigraphy. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of DRS were 96.6% [81.7%-99.9%], and 75.0% [47.6%-92.7%], 87.5% [74.9%-94.3%], and 92.3% [63.1%-98.8%]. DRS was associated with severity on ICG lymphography and bioimpedance (both p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: DRS on non-contrast MRI is highly predictive of dermal backflow and correlates with clinical measures of lymphedema severity. DRS may be used as an independent diagnostic biomarker to identify patients who would benefit from dedicated exams.