DWI may help differentiate between low-risk (Gleason score, 6) and intermediate-risk (Gleason score, 7) prostate cancer and between low-risk (Gleason score, 6) and high-risk (Gleason score > 7) prostate cancer. There is an inverse relationship between the ADC and the percentage of tumor involvement on prostate core biopsies.

Imaging plays a key role in the diagnostic evaluation of women for infertility. The pelvic causes of female infertility are varied and range from tubal and peritubal abnormalities to uterine, cervical, and ovarian disorders. In most cases, the imaging work-up begins with hysterosalpingography to evaluate fallopian tube patency. Uterine filling defects and contour abnormalities may be discovered at hysterosalpingography but typically require further characterization with hysterographic or pelvic ultrasonography (US) or pelvic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Hysterographic US helps differentiate among uterine synechiae, endometrial polyps, and submucosal leiomyomas. Pelvic US and MR imaging help further differentiate among uterine leiomyomas, adenomyosis, and the various müllerian duct anomalies, with MR imaging being the most sensitive modality for detecting endometriosis. The presence of cervical disease may be inferred initially on the basis of difficulty or failure of cervical cannulation at hysterosalpingography. Ovarian abnormalities are usually detected at US. The appropriate selection of imaging modalities and accurate characterization of the various pelvic causes of infertility are essential because the imaging findings help direct subsequent patient care.

Clinical diagnosis of the cause of abdominal pain in a pregnant patient is particularly difficult because of multiple confounding factors related to normal pregnancy. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is useful in evaluation of abdominal pain during pregnancy, as it offers the benefit of cross-sectional imaging without ionizing radiation or evidence of harmful effects to the fetus. MR imaging is often performed specifically for diagnosis of possible appendicitis, which is the most common illness necessitating emergency surgery in pregnant patients. However, it is important to look for pathologic processes outside the appendix that may be an alternative source of abdominal pain. Numerous entities other than appendicitis can cause abdominal pain during pregnancy, including processes of gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, genitourinary, vascular, and gynecologic origin. MR imaging is useful in diagnosing the cause of abdominal pain in a pregnant patient because of its ability to safely demonstrate a wide range of pathologic conditions in the abdomen and pelvis beyond appendicitis.

No abstract

A single, high-dose in utero exposure to water-soluble, low-osmolar, iodinated intravenous products, such as iohexol, is unlikely to have a clinically important effect on thyroid function at birth.

ObjectiveAbdominal pain during pregnancy can be caused by a wide variety of diseases including disorders of the obstetric, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, genitourinary, and vascular systems. Some causes are unique to pregnancy, are exacerbated by pregnancy, or require an altered imaging algorithm for diagnosis during pregnancy. The educational objectives of this review article are for the participant to exercise, self-assess, and improve his or her understanding of the imaging evaluation of abdominal pain during pregnancy. ConclusionThis article reviews the causes of abdominal pain that are unique to pregnancy as well as some of the more common and severe causes of abdominal pain in which the imaging workup differs in the pregnant population. The relative advantages of using ultrasound, CT, and MRI to help establish the cause of the pain are also reviewed.

Disorders of the pelvic floor are a heterogeneous and complex group of problems. Imaging can help elucidate the presence and extent of pelvic floor abnormalities. MRI is particularly well suited for global pelvic floor assessment including pelvic organ prolapse, defecatory function, and pelvic floor support structure integrity.

The MPL has higher agreement with clinical staging than the PCL. However, neither reference line has good agreement with clinical staging.