ABSTRACT
Background: Breast cancer is the most common female cancer worldwide representing nearly a quarter (25%) of all cancers with an estimated 1.67 million new cancer cases diagnosed in 2012.This study was designed with the primary aim to compare the difference between MRI and Mammography in patients presenting with breast related complaints. Methods: This prospective study was conducted between Oct 2006 and Feb 2008 in the department of Radio diagnosis & Imaging at Army Hospital (Research & Referral), Delhi Cantt. Fifty patients screened with suspicious malignant breast lesions were taken up for the study. Results: Mammography Imaging revealed that most of the malignant masses were found to have architectural distortion & calcification with fewer cases of skin involvement, PI& Nipple retraction respectively. Benign masses were diagnosed with comparatively fewer cases of calcification and presence of other morphological features was rare. Various Imaging techniques have been compared with the Histopathology gold standard technique, When compared with USG Our study showed the sensitivity, specificity, PPV,NPV& Accuracy 67%,75%,80%,72%. Conclusion: Mammography compared to DCMRI has shown to produce false negative results, especially showing less sensitivity for diagnosis of breast cancer in younger women having dense breast
ABSTRACT
Background:Spinal dysraphism occurs due to failure of fusion of parts along dorsal aspect of midline structures lying along spinal axis from skin to vertebrae and spinal cord. Congenital spinal anomalies may be minimal and asymptomatic like spinal bifida occulta, or severe with marked neurological deficits like Arnold-Chiari malformation or caudal regression syndrome. Aim: To compare the results obtained from Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in patients with spinal dysraphism. Methods: A total of 50 patients of age group new born to 06 months, who had signs of spinal dysraphism, were included. The patients were subjected to spinal USS and MR imaging after obtaining informed written consent from parents. All the images were reviewed by experienced radiologists who were blinded to the results of other investigative modalities. The findings of the MRI were compared with USS examination. Results: Out of 50 patients, 98 percent patient were detected to hydromyelia, 94 percent of tethering of cord, 92 percent of lumboacaral MMC and 88 percent cases were of Associated Arnold Chiari type II malformation (AC). Only 10% of patients had cervicothoracic meningomyelocele, diastematomyelia and intraspinal lipoma as their primary pathologies. Sensitivity and specificity of USS were 100 in diagnosing most of the spinal deformities. The mean time required for the MRI examination was 26.96 min; however in comparison ultrasonography took less mean time (10.62 min). Conclusion: Paediatric spinal dysraphism and associated malformations are accurately diagnosed on MRI scan. On the other hand, limited access to MR imaging together with high costs and the need for extensive preparation of the patients diminishes its suitability as a screening method for spinal dysraphism