Clinical radiology · 2009
Leiomyoma of the sinonasal cavity: CT and MRI findings.
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.
Yang B T, Wang Z C, Xian J F, Hao D P, Chen Q H
Аннотация
AIM: To determine the computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of leiomyoma of the sinonasal cavity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients with histology-proven leiomyomas in the sinonasal cavity were retrospectively reviewed. All six patients underwent CT and three patients also underwent MRI. The following imaging features were reviewed: size, margin, CT attenuation, MRI signal intensity, and lesion extent. In addition, the time-intensity curve (TIC) of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were analysed in two patients.
RESULTS: All leiomyomas had well-defined margins. The mean size was 36 mm (range 20-51 mm). On unenhanced CT, the lesions appeared isodense to cerebral grey matter in four (67%) and slightly hypodense in two (33%) patients. Leiomyomas appeared isointense On T1-weighted imaging (WI) and slightly hyperintense on T2WI in three patients. The lesions showed moderate contrast enhancement. Two patients underwent DCE MRI, and the TIC showed a rapidly enhancing and slow washout pattern. The mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value were 1.66x10(-3) mm(2)/s and 1.78x10(-3) mm(2)/s for the two lesions, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Well-defined, homogeneous, expansile masses without bony erosion are typical features of leiomyoma. Althrough rare, this entity should be included in the differential diagnosis of benign tumours in this region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients with histology-proven leiomyomas in the sinonasal cavity were retrospectively reviewed. All six patients underwent CT and three patients also underwent MRI. The following imaging features were reviewed: size, margin, CT attenuation, MRI signal intensity, and lesion extent. In addition, the time-intensity curve (TIC) of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were analysed in two patients.
RESULTS: All leiomyomas had well-defined margins. The mean size was 36 mm (range 20-51 mm). On unenhanced CT, the lesions appeared isodense to cerebral grey matter in four (67%) and slightly hypodense in two (33%) patients. Leiomyomas appeared isointense On T1-weighted imaging (WI) and slightly hyperintense on T2WI in three patients. The lesions showed moderate contrast enhancement. Two patients underwent DCE MRI, and the TIC showed a rapidly enhancing and slow washout pattern. The mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value were 1.66x10(-3) mm(2)/s and 1.78x10(-3) mm(2)/s for the two lesions, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Well-defined, homogeneous, expansile masses without bony erosion are typical features of leiomyoma. Althrough rare, this entity should be included in the differential diagnosis of benign tumours in this region.