There has been a substantial increase in the use of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pregnancy and lactation. Among some physicians and patients, however, there are misperceptions regarding risks, safety, and appropriate use of these modalities in pregnancy. We have developed a set of evidence-based guidelines for the use of CT, MRI, and contrast media during pregnancy for selected indications including suspected acute appendicitis, pulmonary embolism, renal colic, trauma, and cephalopelvic disproportion. Ultrasonography is the initial modality of choice for suspected appendicitis, but if the ultrasound examination is negative, MRI or CT can be obtained. Computed tomography should be the initial diagnostic imaging modality for suspected pulmonary embolism. Ultrasonography should be the initial study of choice for suspected renal colic. Ultrasonography can be the initial imaging evaluation for trauma, but CT should be performed if serious injury is suspected. Pelvimetry now is used rarely for suspected cephalopelvic disproportion, but when required, low-dose CT pelvimetry can be performed with minimal risk. Although iodinated contrast seems safe to use in pregnancy, intravenous gadolinium is contraindicated and should be used only when absolutely essential. It seems to be safe to continue breast-feeding immediately after receiving iodinated contrast or gadolinium. Although teratogenesis is not a major concern after exposure to prenatal diagnostic radiation, carcinogenesis is a potential risk. When used appropriately, CT and MRI can be valuable tools in imaging pregnant and lactating women; risks and benefits always should be considered and discussed with patients.
The 2012 revised Atlanta classifi cation is an update of the original 1992 Atlanta classifi cation, a standardized clinical and radiologic nomenclature for acute pancreatitis and associated complications based on research advances made over the past 2 decades. Acute pancreatitis is now divided into two distinct subtypes, necrotizing pancreatitis and interstitial edematous pancreatitis (IEP), based on the presence or absence of necrosis, respectively. The revised classifi cation system also updates confusing and sometimes inaccurate terminology that was previously used to describe pancreatic and peripancreatic collections. As such, use of the terms acute pseudocyst and pancreatic abscess is now discouraged. Instead, four distinct collection subtypes are identifi ed on the basis of the presence of pancreatic necrosis and time elapsed since the onset of pancreatitis. Acute peripancreatic fl uid collections (APFCs) and pseudocysts occur in IEP and contain fl uid only. Acute necrotic collections (ANCs) and walled-off necrosis (WON) occur only in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and contain variable amounts of fl uid and necrotic debris. APFCs and ANCs occur within 4 weeks of disease onset. After this time, APFCs or ANCs may either resolve or persist, developing a mature wall to become a pseudocyst or a WON, respectively. Any collection subtype may become infected and manifest as internal gas, though this occurs most commonly in necrotic collections. In this review, the authors present a practical image-rich guide to the revised Atlanta classifi cation system, with the goal of fostering implementation of the revised system into radiology practice, thereby facilitating accurate communication among clinicians and reinforcing the radiologist's role as a key member of a multidisciplinary team in treating patients with acute pancreatitis.
Purpose: To determine the diagnostic performance of liver apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measured with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (CDI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and inflammation. Materials and Methods:Breathhold single-shot echo-planar imaging CDI and DTI with b-values of 0 and 500 second/mm 2 was performed in 31 patients with chronic liver disease and 13 normal volunteers. Liver biopsy was performed in all patients with liver disease with a median delay of two days from MRI. Fibrosis and inflammation were scored on a 5-point scale (0 -4). Liver ADCs obtained with CDI and DTI were compared between patients stratified by fibrosis stage and inflammation grade. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted to evaluate the utility of the ADC measures for prediction of fibrosis and inflammation. Results:Patients with liver fibrosis and inflammation had significantly lower liver ADC than subjects without fibrosis or inflammation with CDI and DTI. For prediction of fibrosis stage Ն 1 and stage Ն 2, area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.848 and 0.783, sensitivity of 88.5% to 73.7%, and specificity of 73.3% to 72.7% were obtained, for ADC Յ1.40 ϫ 10 -3 mm 2 /second and Յ1.30 ϫ 10 -3 mm 2 /second (using CDI), respectively. For prediction of inflammation grade Ն 1, AUC of 0.825, sensitivity of 75.0%, and specificity of 78.6% were obtained using ADC Յ 1.30 ϫ 10 -3 mm 2 /second (using CDI). CDI performed better than DTI for diagnosis of fibrosis and inflammation. Conclusion:Liver ADC can be used to predict liver fibrosis and inflammation with acceptable sensitivity and specificity.
Purpose of review-The purpose of this article is to review the current status of advanced MRI techniques based on anatomic, metabolic and physiologic properties of prostate cancer with a focus on their impact in managing prostate cancer patients.Recent findings-Prostate cancer can be identified based on reduced T 2 signal intensity on MRI, increased choline and decreased citrate and polyamines on magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI), decreased diffusivity on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and increased uptake on dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging. All can be obtained within a 60-min 3T magnetic resonance exam. Each complementary method has inherent advantages and disadvantages: T 2 MRI has high sensitivity but poor specificity; magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging has high specificity but poor sensitivity; diffusion tensor imaging has high spatial resolution, is the fastest, but sensitivity/specificity needs to be established; dynamic contrast enhanced imaging has high spatial resolution, but requires a gadolinium based contrast agent injection, and sensitivity/specificity needs to be established.Summary-The best characterization of prostate cancer in individual patients will most likely result from a multiparametric (MRI/MRSI/DTI/DCE) exam using 3T magnetic resonance scanners but questions remain as to how to analyze and display this large amount of imaging data, and how to optimally combine the data for the most accurate assessment of prostate cancer. Histological correlations or clinical outcomes are required to determine sensitivity/specificity for each method and optimal combinations of these approaches.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.