Although traumatic and iatrogenic bile leaks are rare, they have become more prevalent in recent years due to an increased propensity toward nonsurgical management of patients with liver trauma and an overall increase in the number of hepatobiliary surgeries being performed. Because clinical signs and symptoms of bile leaks are nonspecific and delay in the recognition of bile leaks is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, imaging is crucial for establishing an early diagnosis and guiding the treatment algorithm. At computed tomography or ultrasonography, free or contained peri- or intrahepatic low-attenuation (low-density) fluid in the setting of recent trauma or hepatobiliary surgery should raise suspicion for a bile leak. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy and magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiopancreatography with hepatobiliary contrast agents can help detect active or contained bile leaks. MR cholangiopancreatography with hepatobiliary contrast agents has the added advantage of being able to help localize the bile leak, which in turn can help determine if endoscopic management is sufficient or if surgical management is warranted. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography may provide diagnostic confirmation and concurrent therapy when nonsurgical management is pursued. A multimodality imaging approach is helpful in diagnosing traumatic or iatrogenic biliary injuries, accurately localizing a bile leak, and determining appropriate treatment.
Background Early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) can be curative; however, prostate‐specific antigen is a suboptimal screening test for clinically significant PCa. While prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has demonstrated value for the diagnosis of PCa, the acquisition time is too long for a first‐line screening modality. Purpose To accelerate prostate MRI exams, utilizing a variational network (VN) for image reconstruction. Study Type Retrospective. Subjects One hundred and thirteen subjects (train/val/test: 70/13/30) undergoing prostate MRI. Field Strength/Sequence 3.0 T; a T2 turbo spin echo (TSE) T2‐weighted image (T2WI) sequence in axial and coronal planes, and axial echo‐planar diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI). Assessment Four abdominal radiologists evaluated the image quality of VN reconstructions of retrospectively under‐sampled biparametric MRIs (bp‐MRI), and standard bp‐MRI reconstructions for 20 test subjects (studies). The studies included axial and coronal T2WI, DWI B50 seconds/mm2 and B1000 seconds/mm (4‐fold T2WI, 3‐fold DWI), all of which were evaluated separately for image quality on a Likert scale (1: non‐diagnostic to 5: excellent quality). In another 10 test subjects, three readers graded lesions on bp‐MRI—which additionally included calculated B1500 seconds/mm2, and apparent diffusion coefficient map—according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS v2.1), for both VN and standard reconstructions. Accuracy of PI‐RADS ≥3 for clinically significant cancer was computed. Projected scan time of the retrospectively under‐sampled biparametric exam was also computed. Statistical Tests One‐sided Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for comparison of image quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for lesion detection and grading. Generalized estimating equation with cluster effect was used to compare differences between standard and VN bp‐MRI. A P‐value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Three of four readers rated no significant difference for overall quality between the standard and VN axial T2WI (Reader 1: 4.00 ± 0.56 (Standard), 3.90 ± 0.64 (VN) P = 0.33; Reader 2: 4.35 ± 0.74 (Standard), 3.80 ± 0.89 (VN) P = 0.003; Reader 3: 4.60 ± 0.50 (Standard), 4.55 ± 0.60 (VN) P = 0.39; Reader 4: 3.65 ± 0.99 (Standard), 3.60 ± 1.00 (VN) P = 0.38). All four readers rated no significant difference for overall quality between standard and VN DWI B1000 seconds/mm2 (Reader 1: 2.25 ± 0.62 (Standard), 2.45 ± 0.75 (VN) P = 0.96; Reader 2: 3.60 ± 0.92 (Standard), 3.55 ± 0.82 (VN) P = 0.40; Reader 3: 3.85 ± 0.72 (Standard), 3.55 ± 0.89 (VN) P = 0.07; Reader 4: 4.70 ± 0.76 (Standard); 4.60 ± 0.73 (VN) P = 0.17) and three of four readers rated no significant difference for overall quality between standard and VN DWI B50 seconds/mm2 (Reader 1: 3.20 ± 0.70 (Standard), 3.40 ± 0.75 (VN) P = 0.98; Reader 2: 2.85 ± 0.81 (Standard), 3.00 ± 0.79 (VN) P = 0.93; Reader 3: 4.45 ± 0.72 (Standard), 4.05 ...
Primary lesions of the tubular bones of the digits are not uncommon, and the vast majority of these lesions are benign. Benign intramedullary lesions such as enchondromas are frequently discovered incidentally, unless they are associated with a pathologic fracture. Expansile lesions or lesions that are pedunculated and protrude from the cortex may manifest with pain and functional deficits from local inflammatory reactions. Systemic disorders such as sarcoidosis and local soft-tissue lesions with involvement of adjacent bone may mimic primary phalangeal bone tumors. Primary or secondary malignant lesions of the phalanges, most commonly chondrosarcomas, are extremely rare, and their characterization may require the use of multiple modalities, including radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Although ultrasonography is extremely useful in the evaluation of soft-tissue lesions of the hand, its role in the evaluation of osseous lesions is limited. The authors describe the imaging features of the most common benign osseous and chondral lesions of the fingers, including enchondromas, cystic lesions, and osteochondromas. In addition, they discuss malignant entities that may occur in the fingers (eg, chondrosarcomas and metastatic lesions) and commonly encountered mimics of primary osseous lesions (eg, glomus tumors, intraosseous epidermal inclusion cysts, infectious entities, and manifestations of systemic diseases). They also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the most commonly used imaging modalities in differentiating benign from malignant lesions.
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.