ABSTRACT
Objective:This study aimed to evaluate the performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abbreviated protocol (AP) in diagnosing breast neoplasms.Methods:We retrospectively analyzed the data of 86 patients who had undergone breast MRI examinations and compared the images using an AP and full diagnostic protocol (FDP). The AP consisted of axial T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and four-phase dynamic enhancement sequences. The FDP consisted of sagittal T2WI, axial T2WI, T1-weighted imaging, DWI, and seven-phase dynamic enhancement sequences. All the images were analyzed using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The consistencies between the different protocols were then calculated. With the pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, the diagnostic capabilities of the two protocols were compared.Result:Two radiologists analyzed the AP and FDP images. The consistencies in the BI-RADS between the different protocols were 0.856 and 0.900, and those in time-signal intensity curves (TICs) were 0.822 and 0.922. Within the same protocol, the consistencies in the BI-RADS between different radiologists were 0.744 and 0.822, and those in TICs were 0.889 and 0.878. No significant differences were found ( P>0.05). In terms of diagnosing malignant neoplasms using the BI-RADS, the sensitivities of the AP and FDP were 89.8% (95 %CI: 0.785-0.958) and 91.5% (95 %CI: 0.806-0.968), respectively; their specificities were 71.0% (95 %CI: 0.518-0.851) and 77.4% (95 %CI: 0.585-0.897), respectively; and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were 0.804 (95 %CI: 0.698-0.910) and 0.845 (95 %CI: 0.748-0.941), respectively. Diagnosing malignant neoplasms using TICs, the sensitivities of the AP and FDP were 86.4% (95 %CI: 0.745-0.936) and 89.8% (95 %CI: 0.785-0.958), respectively; their specificities were 61.3% (95 %CI: 0.423-0.776) and 67.7% (95 %CI: 0.485-0.827), respectively, and the AUCs were 0.739 (95 %CI: 0.623-0.855) and 0.788 (95 %CI: 0.679-0.897), respectively. There was no significant difference between the AP and FDP ( P>0.05). The MRI acquisition times of the AP and FDP were 11.97±0.94 min and 21.25±1.12 min, respectively, with a significant difference ( P<0.001). The average reading time was reduced by 13.5% using the AP compared with that using the FDP. Conclusion:Compared with the FDP, the AP reduced the acquisition time and maintained the diagnostic accuracy, which can be used as an improved pattern for MRI screening in high-risk populations of breast neoplasms.
ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the differences in magnetic resonance imaging characteristics between perianal?fistulas of Crohn disease (P?FCD) and perianal?fistulas of non?Crohn disease (P?FNCD). Methods A retrospective analysis was made of 109 patients with perianal fistula who were confirmed by clinical examinations and surgery and had complete preoperative pelvic MRI data from sir run run shaw hospital affiliated to Zhejiang University from June 2015 to March 2017. Patients were divided into P?FCD and P?FNCD groups according to whether the patient was clinically diagnosed with Crohn disease (CD). There were 59 cases in group P?FCD and 50 cases in group P?FNCD. All patients underwent pelvic MRI plain scan and enhanced scan. the classifications of perianal fistula (St. James University Hospital classification and improved Parks classification) were evaluated. The number of branches, the number of abscesses, the number of internal opening, the height of the internal opening were measured and recorded. The incidence of proctitis and anal inflammation were recorded. Van Assche score was evaluated. Measured data between patients in the P?FCD and P?FNCD groups were compared using independent sample t test (normal distribution) or non?parametric test (skewed distribution).The quantitative data were compared using cross?sectional Pearson χ2 test. Results There were significant differences in the number of branches, the number of abscesses, the number of internal opening, the height of the internal opening, the positive rate of proctitis, the positive rate of anal canalitis, and the Van Assche score between the P?FCD group and the P?FNCD group (all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the modified Parks classification between the P?FCD group and the P?FNCD group (P>0.05).There was significant difference in the classification of St. James University Hospital between the P?FCD group and the P?FNCD group (P<0.05). Conclusions P?FCD is mainly composed of high complex anal fistula, which is significantly different from P?FNCD. We used St. James University Hospital classification and Van Assche score to diagnose perianal fistula in combination with clinical examinations, which was helpful for the diagnosis of P?FCD.