European journal of radiology · 2015
The role of apparent diffusion coefficient values in detecting testicular intraepithelial neoplasia: preliminary results.
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.
Tsili Athina C, Ntorkou Alexandra, Baltogiannis Dimitrios, Goussia Anna, Astrakas Loukas G, Malamou-Mitsi Vasiliki, Sofikitis Nikolaos, Argyropoulou Maria I
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to improve detection of testicular intraepithelial neoplasia (TIN) by measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six MRI examinations of the scrotum, including 26 histologically proven testicular germ cell neoplasms were retrospectively evaluated. DWI was performed using a single shot, multi-slice spin-echo planar diffusion pulse sequence and b-values of 0 and 900 s mm(-2). ADC measurements were classified into three groups according to their location: group 1 (n=19), non-tumoral part, adjacent to testicular carcinoma, where the possible location of TIN was; group 2 (n=26), testicular carcinoma; and group 3 (n=60), normal testicular parenchyma. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc analysis (Dunnett T3) was used for statistical purposes.
RESULTS: The mean±s.d. of ADC values (×10(-3) mm(2)/s) of different groups were: group 1, 1.08±0.20; group 2, 0.72±0.27; and group 3, 1.11±0.14. ANOVA revealed differences of mean ADC between groups (F=38.859, P<0.001). Post hoc analysis showed differences between groups 2 and 3 (P<0.001), groups 2 and 1 (P<0.001), but not between groups 3 and 1 (P=0.87).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our preliminary results, ADC values do not provide a reliable differentiation between TIN and testicular carcinoma or normal testicular parenchyma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six MRI examinations of the scrotum, including 26 histologically proven testicular germ cell neoplasms were retrospectively evaluated. DWI was performed using a single shot, multi-slice spin-echo planar diffusion pulse sequence and b-values of 0 and 900 s mm(-2). ADC measurements were classified into three groups according to their location: group 1 (n=19), non-tumoral part, adjacent to testicular carcinoma, where the possible location of TIN was; group 2 (n=26), testicular carcinoma; and group 3 (n=60), normal testicular parenchyma. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc analysis (Dunnett T3) was used for statistical purposes.
RESULTS: The mean±s.d. of ADC values (×10(-3) mm(2)/s) of different groups were: group 1, 1.08±0.20; group 2, 0.72±0.27; and group 3, 1.11±0.14. ANOVA revealed differences of mean ADC between groups (F=38.859, P<0.001). Post hoc analysis showed differences between groups 2 and 3 (P<0.001), groups 2 and 1 (P<0.001), but not between groups 3 and 1 (P=0.87).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our preliminary results, ADC values do not provide a reliable differentiation between TIN and testicular carcinoma or normal testicular parenchyma.