RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 1996
[Ductal carcinoma in situ in dynamic MR-mammography at 1.5 T].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Fischer U, Westerhof J P, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To define the value of contrast-enhanced MR mammography in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a group of 35 patients with DCIS, the results of MR imaging were compared to histopathology and immunohistochemistry in a retrospective study.
RESULTS: In 35 patients with DCIS, a signal enhancement was found in 25 cases (72%). In 15 of these cases, the signal time curve was typical for malignancy. The other 10 patients had non-specific signal curves. Six of 35 patients (11%) had no enhancement within the tumour region. Four of 35 patients (11%) had bilateral diffuse signal increase, and regions of DCIS could not be identified clearly. Three DCIS were visualised exclusively by MR mammography. The configuration of signal enhancement was sharp (32%), unsharp (48%) or dendritic (20%). DCIS of the comedo type showed a significantly higher enhancement than the non-comedo type. A significant correlation between the grade of vascularisation in immunohistochemistry and signal enhancement in MR mammography could not be demonstrated.
CONCLUSION: Dynamic MR mammography does not reliably visualise DCIS.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a group of 35 patients with DCIS, the results of MR imaging were compared to histopathology and immunohistochemistry in a retrospective study.
RESULTS: In 35 patients with DCIS, a signal enhancement was found in 25 cases (72%). In 15 of these cases, the signal time curve was typical for malignancy. The other 10 patients had non-specific signal curves. Six of 35 patients (11%) had no enhancement within the tumour region. Four of 35 patients (11%) had bilateral diffuse signal increase, and regions of DCIS could not be identified clearly. Three DCIS were visualised exclusively by MR mammography. The configuration of signal enhancement was sharp (32%), unsharp (48%) or dendritic (20%). DCIS of the comedo type showed a significantly higher enhancement than the non-comedo type. A significant correlation between the grade of vascularisation in immunohistochemistry and signal enhancement in MR mammography could not be demonstrated.
CONCLUSION: Dynamic MR mammography does not reliably visualise DCIS.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma in SituCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastContrast MediaFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeovascularization, PathologicOrganometallic CompoundsPentetic AcidRetrospective Studies