Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Int. braz. j. urol ; 48(2): 294-302, March-Apr. 2022. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1364942


ABSTRACT Objective: To compare enhancement patterns of typical adrenal adenomas, lipid-poor adenomas, and non-adenomas on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: Evaluation of adrenal nodules larger than 1.0 cm, with at least 2-year follow-up, evaluated on MRI in January 2007 and December 2016. Two different protocols were included - upper abdomen MRI (delayed phase after 3 minutes) and abdomen and pelvis MRI (delayed phase after 7 minutes) - and nodules were divided in typical adenomas (characterized on out-of-phase MRI sequence), lipid-poor adenomas (based on follow-up imaging stability) and non-adenomas (based on pathological finding or follow-up imaging). T2-weighted and enhancement features were analyzed (absolute and relative washout and enhancement curve pattern), similarly to classic computed tomography equations. Results: Final cohort was composed of 123 nodules in 116 patients (mean diameter of 1.8 cm and mean follow up time of 4 years and 3 months). Of them, 98 (79%) nodules had features of typical adenomas by quantitative chemical shift imaging, and demonstrated type 3 curve pattern in 77%, mean absolute and relative washout of 29% and 16%, respectively. Size, oncologic history and T2-weighted features showed statistically significant differences among groups. Also, a threshold greater than 11.75% for absolute washout on MRI achieved sensitivity of 71.4% and specificity of 70.0%, in differentiating typical adenomas from non-adenomas. Conclusion: Calculating absolute washout of adrenal nodules on MRI may help identifying proportion of non-adenomas.

Humans , Adrenal Gland Neoplasms/pathology , Adrenal Gland Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Contrast Media , Diagnosis, Differential
Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 20: eAO6851, 2022. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1375346


ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate whether the presence of a hypointense signal at T2-weighted imaging in a solid ovarian lesion on magnetic resonance imaging is a predictor of stability and benignity. Methods This is a single center study, prospectively read with retrospective acquired data. The database was searched for patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging between January 2008 and October 2019 and whose reports mentioned solid ovarian lesions with low signal on T2-weighted imaging. A total of 47 nodules were included. A radiologist who was blinded to the clinical indication for magnetic resonance imaging and original reports evaluated the cases. Objective and subjective criteria of ovarian lesions in magnetic resonance imaging were evaluated. Results Thirty-five nodules were considered benign/stable and 12 were considered non-stable. The analysis showed that the non-stable lesions showed statistically more hyperintensity at T1-weighted imaging compared to the stable lesions. Conclusion T2-weighted imaging hypointensity can be considered a predictor of stability in solid ovarian lesions when associated with iso/hypointensity in T1-weighted imaging.

Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 18: eAO5576, 2020. tab
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1133778


ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate anatomic factors and radiologist's experience in the detection of solid renal masses on ultrasonography. Methods: We searched for solid renal masses diagnosed on cross-sectional imaging from 2007 to 2017 that also had previous ultrasonography from the past 6 months. The following features were evaluated: nodule size, laterality, location and growth pattern, patient body mass index and radiologist's experience in ultrasound. In surgically resected cases, pathologic reports were evaluated. Unpaired t test and χ2 test were used to evaluate differences among subgroups, using R-statistics. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: The initial search of renal nodules on cross-sectional imaging resulted in 428 lesions and 266 lesions were excluded. Final cohort included 162 lesions and, of those, 108 (67%) were correctly detected on ultrasonography (Group 1) and 54 (33%) were missed (Group 2). Comparison of Groups 1 and 2 were as follows, respectively: body mass index (27.7 versus 27.1; p=0.496), size (2.58cm versus 1.74cm; p=0.003), laterality (54% versus 59% right sided; p=0.832), location (27% versus 22% upper pole; p=0.869), growth pattern (25% versus 28% endophytic; p=0.131) and radiologist's experience (p=0.300). From surgically resected cases, histology available for Group 1 was clear cell (n=11), papillary (n=15), chromophobe (n=2) renal cell carcinoma, oncocytoma (n=1), and, for Group 2, clear cell (n=7), papillary (n=5) renal cell carcinoma, oncocytoma (n=2), angiomyolipoma, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, and interstitial pyelonephritis (n=1, each). Conclusion: Size was the only significant parameter related to renal nodule detection on ultrasound.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar os fatores anatômicos e a experiência do radiologista na detecção de massas renais sólidas na ultrassonografia. Métodos: Buscamos massas renais sólidas diagnosticadas em imagens seccionais, de 2007 a 2017, que também tivessem ultrassonografia prévia nos últimos 6 meses. As seguintes características foram avaliadas: tamanho do nódulo, lateralidade, localização e padrão de crescimento, índice de massa corporal do paciente e experiência do radiologista em ultrassonografia. Nos casos com ressecção cirúrgica, os laudos de patologia foram analisados. O teste t não pareado e o teste χ2 foram utilizados para avaliar as diferenças entre os subgrupos, usando R-statistics. A significância estatística foi estabelecida em p<0,05. Resultados: A pesquisa inicial de nódulos renais achados em imagens seccionais resultou em 428 lesões, com 266 exclusões. A coorte final incluiu 162 lesões e, destas, 108 (67%) foram detectadas corretamente na ultrassonografia (Grupo 1), e 54 (33%) não foram identificadas (Grupo 2). A comparação dos Grupos 1 e 2 mostrou índice de massa corporal (27,7 versus 27,1; p=0,496), tamanho (2,58cm versus 1,74cm; p=0,003), lateralidade (54% versus 59% no lado direito; p=0,832), localização (27% versus 22% no polo superior; p=0,869), padrão de crescimento (25% versus 28% endofítico; p=0,131) e experiência do radiologista (p=0,300). A histologia disponível para o Grupo 1 foi carcinoma renal de células claras (n=11), papilar (n=15), cromófobo (n=2), oncocitoma (n=1), e, para o Grupo 2, carcinoma renal de células claras (n=7), papilar (n=5), oncocitoma (n=2), angiomiolipoma, cromófobo e pielonefrite intersticial (n=1, cada). Conclusão: O tamanho foi o único parâmetro significativo relacionado à detecção de nódulos renais no ultrassom.

Humans , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/diagnostic imaging , Ultrasonography , Kidney/diagnostic imaging , Kidney Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Diagnosis, Differential , Radiologists , Kidney/pathology
Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 18: eAO4662, 2020. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1056076


ABSTRACT Objective To assess accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance of the prostate to estimate gland volume, comparing the results with transrectal ultrasound and surgical specimen. Methods A retrospective study of 85 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound (for fusion image-guided biopsy) before radical prostatectomy. Prostate measurements were obtained from magnetic resonance axial and sagittal T2-weighted images and ultrasound; the prostate volume was determined using the ellipsoid formula. The results were compared with the surgical specimen weight. Maximum interval between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, transrectal ultrasound, and prostatectomy was 6 months. Results The prostate volume measured by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was 18-157cm3 (mean of 49.9cm3) and by transrectal ultrasound, 22-165cm3 (mean of 54.9cm3); the surgical specimen weight was 20-154g (mean of 48.6g), with no statistical differences. Based on the values obtained from imaging examinations, the prostate volume obtained was very close to the real prostatic weight, and the measures by multiparametric magnetic resonance were slightly more precise. Conclusion Prostate volume measured by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound showed similar values, and excellent agreement with real prostate weight of the surgical specimens. Prostate volume measured by magnetic resonance has been increasingly used in the clinical practice, and its value enables appropriate therapeutic planning and control of patients.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a acurácia da ressonância magnética multiparamétrica da próstata para estimativa do volume da glândula, comparando seus resultados com a ultrassonografia transretal e correlacionando com o volume obtido da peça cirúrgica. Métodos Estudo retrospectivo incluindo 85 pacientes submetidos à ressonância magnética e, posteriormente, à ultrassonografia transretal (para orientação de biópsia com fusão de imagens) e, a seguir, à prostatectomia radical. As dimensões prostáticas foram obtidas na ressonância a partir das imagens nos planos axial e sagital em sequências ponderadas em T2 e, assim como na ultrassonografia, o volume foi calculado a partir do método da elipsoide. Os valores foram comparados com o peso prostático pós-cirúrgico. O intervalo máximo entre a ressonância e ultrassonografia e prostatectomia foi de 6 meses. Resultados O volume prostático obtido por ressonância magnética foi de 18 a 157cm3(média de 49,9cm3); pela ultrassonografia transretal, foi de 22 a 165cm3(média de 54,9cm3); e o peso da peça cirúrgica foi de 20 a 154g (média de 48,6g), sem diferenças estatísticas. A partir do valor obtido por esses métodos de imagem, provou-se que o volume prostático obtido aproximou-se bastante do peso real da próstata, com discreta maior precisão das medidas obtidas por ressonância magnética multiparamétrica. Conclusão As medidas do volume prostático adquiridas pela ressonância magnética e pela ultrassonografia transretal são semelhantes entre si, com excelente concordância com os pesos reais das próstatas obtidos das peças cirúrgicas. A avaliação desse dado, a partir da ressonância, método cada vez mais utilizado na prática clínica, permite o adequado planejamento terapêutico e o controle dos pacientes.

Humans , Male , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Prostate/anatomy & histology , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Ultrasonography/methods , Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Organ Size , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Dimensional Measurement Accuracy , Middle Aged
Radiol. bras ; 52(4): 254-261, July-Aug. 2019. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1020313


Abstract More than half of patients over 50 years of age have had at least one focal renal lesion detected as an incidental finding during an ultrasound, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging examination. Although the majority of such lesions can be easily detected and correctly characterized, misdiagnoses may occur and are often related to methodological limitations, inappropriate imaging protocols, or misinterpretation. This pictorial essay provides recommendations on how to recognize benign and malignant renal processes that can be potentially missed or mischaracterized in imaging studies.

Resumo Mais da metade dos pacientes com mais de 50 anos de idade pode ter pelo menos uma lesão renal focal detectada de modo incidental em estudos de imagem, como ultrassonografia, tomografia computadorizada ou ressonância magnética. Embora a maioria dessas lesões possa ser facilmente caracterizada, erros de diagnóstico podem ocorrer e geralmente estão relacionados a limitações de métodos, protocolos de imagem inadequados e interpretação incorreta. Este ensaio iconográfico aborda recomendações sobre como reconhecer e interpretar lesões focais renais em estudos de imagem.

Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 17(3): eAO4615, 2019. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1011995


ABSTRACT Objective: To compare qualitatively and quantitatively, in terms of image quality, a new biexponential diffusion sequence protocol with the standard monoexponential diffusion protocol on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: This study had a prospective data collection and cross-sectional analysis. Between August and November 2017, a total of 70 patients who underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging due to clinical suspicion of prostatic neoplasia were recruited. The images obtained were evaluated by two independent readers regarding subjective/qualitative criteria (six criteria) and objective/quantitative criteria (three criteria), always comparing the monoexponential to biexponential acquisition protocols. The results were compared by statistical analysis (interobserver agreement − Gwet coefficient; analysis of the qualitative variables − Stuart-Maxwell test; and analysis of the quantitative variables − Wilcoxon test). Results: After exclusion of four patients, the final sample consisted of 66 patients. A good/excellent inter observer agreement was stablished for subjective criteria (except in one criteria). For the qualitative analysis the amount of good or excellent evaluations was higher for the monoexponential protocol (except in one category), with evidence of significant differences for three criteria (diffusion weighted imaging global quality; diffusion weighted imaging signal-to-noise ratio; and apparent diffusion coefficient signal-to-noise ratio). For the quantitative data analysis, the monoexponential protocol showed less variability of the anteroposterior diameters, meaning less distortion of the images, and better estimated signal-to-noise ratio. Conclusion: In our data, the quality of the images of the monoexponential standard diffusion sequence was qualitatively and quantitatively superior to those of the biexponential diffusion weighted imaging sequence.

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar qualitativa e quantitativamente, em termos de qualidade de imagem, um novo protocolo de sequência de difusão biexponencial com o protocolo de difusão monoexponencial padrão, em ressonância magnética multiparamétrica da próstata. Métodos: Estudo com coleta prospectiva e análise transversal. Entre agosto e novembro de 2017, foram recrutados 70 pacientes que realizaram ressonância magnética multiparamétrica da próstata, por suspeita de neoplasia prostática. As imagens obtidas por ambas as sequências foram avaliadas por dois leitores independentes, quanto a critérios de avaliação subjetiva/qualitativa (seis critérios) e objetiva/quantitativa (três critérios), sempre comparando os protocolos de aquisição monoexponencial e biexponencial. Os resultados foram comparados por análise estatística (concordância interobservador − coeficiente de Gwet; análise das variáveis qualitativas − teste de Stuart-Maxwell; e análise das variáveis quantitativas − testes de Wilcoxon). Resultados: Após exclusão de quatro pacientes, a amostra final foi composta por 66 pacientes. Uma boa/excelente concordância interobservador foi estabelecida para critérios subjetivos (exceto em um critério). Para a análise qualitativa, a quantidade de avaliações boas ou excelentes foi maior para o protocolo monoexponencial (exceto em uma categoria), com evidências de diferenças significativas para três critérios (qualidade global da imagem ponderada em difusão, relação sinal-ruído na imagem ponderada em difusão e relação sinal-ruído ADC). Para a análise quantitativa dos dados, o protocolo monoexponencial apresentou menor variabilidade dos diâmetros anteroposteriores, o que significou menos distorção das imagens, e melhor relação sinal-ruído estimada. Conclusão: Em nossos dados, a qualidade das imagens da sequência de difusão padrão monoexponencial foi qualitativa e quantitativamente superior àquelas da sequência teste biexponencial.

Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging/standards , Reference Standards , Observer Variation , Cross-Sectional Studies , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Statistics, Nonparametric , Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Int. braz. j. urol ; 44(6): 1129-1138, Nov.-Dec. 2018. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-975650


ABSTRACT Background: Dynamic-contrast enhanced (DCE) sequence is used to increase detection of small lesions, based on increased vascularization. However, literature is controversy about the real incremental value of DCE in detection of clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer (PCa), since absence of enhancement does not exclude cancer, and enhancement alone is not definitive for tumor. Purpose: To test the hypothesis that DCE images do not increase CS PCa detection on MRI prior to biopsy, comparing exams without and with contrast sequences. Material and Materials and Methods: All men who come to our institution to perform MRI on a 3T scanner without a prior diagnosis of CS PCa were invited to participate in this study. Reference standard was transrectal prostate US with systematic biopsy and MRI/US fusion biopsy of suspicious areas. Radiologists read the MRI images prospectively and independently (first only sequences without contrast, and subsequently the entire exam) and graded them on 5-points scale of cancer suspicion. Results: 102 patients were included. Overall detection on biopsy showed CS cancer in 43 patients (42.2%), clinically non-significant cancer in 11 (10.8%) and negative results in 48 patients (47%). Positivities for CS PCa ranged from 8.9% to 9.8% for low suspicion and 75.0% to 88.9% for very high suspicion. There was no statistical difference regarding detection of CS PCa (no statistical difference was found when compared accuracies, sensitivities, specificities, PPV and NPV in both types of exams). Inter-reader agreement was 0.59. Conclusion: Exams with and without contrast-enhanced sequences were similar for detection of CS PCa on MRI.

Humans , Male , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Contrast Media/administration & dosage , Predictive Value of Tests , Sensitivity and Specificity , Middle Aged
Radiol. bras ; 51(5): 287-292, Sept.-Oct. 2018. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-976733


Abstract Objective: To identify, in patients with clinical suspicion of ureterolithiasis, epidemiological and imaging features that affect calculus detection on ultrasound, as well as to compare ultrasound with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Materials and Methods: We searched our database for patients who underwent ultrasound, followed by MDCT (if the ultrasound was negative), for suspected ureterolithiasis in an emergency setting. Patients were divided into three groups: positive ultrasound (US+); negative ultrasound/positive MDCT (US−/MDCT+); and negative ultrasound/negative MDCT (US−/MDCT−). We evaluated age, gender, ureterolithiasis laterality, location of the calculus within the ureter, body mass index, calculus diameter, and calculus attenuation on MDCT. Results: Of a total of 292 cases of suspected ureterolithiasis, 155 (53.1%) were in the US+ group, 46 (15.7%) were in the US−/MDCT+ group, and 91 (31.2%) were in the US−/MDCT− group. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of age, gender, ureterolithiasis laterality, and mean MDCT attenuation values. Distal ureterolithiasis was most common in the US+ group, and calculi at other ureteral locations were more common in the US−/MDCT+ group. The mean body mass index was significantly higher in the US−/MDCT+ group than in the US+ group, and the mean calculus diameter was significantly greater in the US+ group than in the US−/MDCT+ group. Conclusion: A high body mass index, large calculus diameter, and calculus location in the distal third of the ureter are the major factors favoring ureterolithiasis detection on ultrasound.

Resumo Objetivo: Identificar achados epidemiológicos e de imagem em pacientes com suspeita clínica de ureterolitíase que afetam a detecção do cálculo no ultrassom (US), comparado com a tomografia computadorizada multidetectores (TCMD). Materiais e Métodos: Procuramos, em nosso banco de dados, por pacientes que realizaram US no serviço de emergência, seguido por TCMD (se US negativo), por suspeita de ureterolitíase. Os pacientes foram divididos em: 1) US positivo; 2) US negativo e TCMD positiva; 3) US e TCMD negativos. Avaliamos idade, sexo, lateralidade, localização ureteral, índice de massa corporal, diâmetro e densidade do cálculo. Resultados: Foram incluídos no estudo 292 pacientes. Constatamos que 53,1% das ureterolitíases foram detectadas por US (grupo 1), 15,7% apenas por TCMD (grupo 2), e em 31,2% ambos os métodos foram negativos (grupo 3). Idade, sexo, lateralidade e densidade do cálculo pela TCMD não tiveram diferença significativa entre os grupos. No grupo 1, ureterolitíase foi detectada, preferencialmente, em localização distal, e fora do ureter distal no grupo 2. O índice de massa corporal foi significativamente maior em pacientes do grupo 2, comparado ao grupo 1. O diâmetro do cálculo detectado no grupo 1 foi significativamente maior do que no grupo 2. Conclusão: Índice de massa corporal, diâmetro e localização do cálculo no terço distal do ureter foram os principais fatores que contribuíram para a detecção do cálculo pelo US.

Int. braz. j. urol ; 44(5): 882-891, Sept.-Oct. 2018. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-975623


ABSTRACT Purpose: To identify objective and subjective criteria on multiparametric prostate MRI that can be helpful for prostate cancer detection. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study, IRB approved, including 122 patients who had suspicious lesion on MRI and who underwent prostate biopsy with ultrasonography (US)/MRI imaging fusion. There were 60 patients with positive biopsies and 62 with negative biopsies. MRI of these patients were randomized and evaluated independently by two blinded radiologists. The following variables were analyzed in each lesion: morphology, contours, T2 signal, diffusion restriction (subjective impression and objective values), hyper-enhancement, contact with transition zone or prostatic contour, prostatic contour retraction, Likert and PIRADS classification. Results: Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value was the best predictor of positivity for prostate cancer, with mean value of 1.08 (SD 0.20) and 1.09 mm2/sec (SD 0.24) on negative biopsies and 0.81 (SD 0.22) and 0.84 mm2/sec (SD 0.22) on positive biopsies for readers 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.001 in both analysis). For the others categorical variables evaluated the best AUC for reader 1 was subjective intensity of diffusion restriction (AUC of 0.74) and for reader 2 was hyper-enhancement (AUC of 0.65), all inferior comparing to the value of ADC map. Interobserver agreement ranged from 0.13 to 0.75, poor in most measurements, and good or excellent (kappa > 0.6) only in lesion size and ADC values. Conclusions: Diffusion restriction with lower ADC-values is the best parameter to predict cancer on MRI prior to biopsy. Efforts to establish an ADC cutoff value would improve cancer detection, especially for less experience reader.

Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 16(2): eMD4408, 2018. graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-953159


ABSTRACT Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate is an imaging method that has shown increasing relevance in urological practice. Due to technological evolution of scanners and the introduction of functional sequences, it has enabled greater accuracy in detection and characterization of prostate tumors.

RESUMO A ressonância magnética de próstata é um método de imagem que tem demonstrado crescente relevância na prática urológica. Devido aos avanços tecnológicos dos equipamentos e à introdução de sequências funcionais, possibilita maior acurácia na detecção e caracterização de tumores prostáticos.

Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity , Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional , Image-Guided Biopsy/methods
Int. braz. j. urol ; 42(5): 897-905, Sept.-Oct. 2016. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-796878


ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of transrectal ultrasonography (US) biopsy with imaging fusion using multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa), with an emphasis on clinically significant tumors according to histological criteria. Materials and Methods: A total of 189 consecutive US/MRI fusion biopsies were performed obtaining systematic and guided samples of suspicious areas on mpMRI using a 3 Tesla magnet without endorectal coil. Clinical significance for prostate cancer was established based on Epstein criteria. Results: In our casuistic, the average Gleason score was 7 and the average PSA was 5.0ng/mL. Of the 189 patients that received US/MRI biopsies, 110 (58.2%) were positive for PCa. Of those cases, 88 (80%) were clinically significant, accounting for 46.6% of all patients. We divided the MRI findings into 5 Likert scales of probability of having clinically significant PCa. The positivity of US/MRI biopsy for clinically significant PCa was 0%, 17.6% 23.5%, 53.4% and 84.4% for Likert scores 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in terms of biopsy results between different levels of suspicion on mpMRI and also when biopsy results were divided into groups of clinically non-significant versus clinically significant between different levels of suspicion on mpMRI (p-value <0.05 in both analyzes). Conclusion: We found that there is a significant difference in cancer detection using US/MRI fusion biopsy between low-probability and intermediate/high probability Likert scores using mpMRI.

Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Prostate/pathology , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/instrumentation , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Ultrasonography, Interventional/methods , Statistics, Nonparametric , Neoplasm Grading , Middle Aged
Einstein (Säo Paulo) ; 14(3): 374-377, July-Sept. 2016. graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-796959


ABSTRACT Objective: To describe the imaging findings of prostatic tumors nonadenocarcinoma on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Methods: A total of 200 patients underwented multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for screening for prostate cancer, from August 2013 to September 2014, followed by biopsy with ultrasound/magnetic resonance imaging fusion. Results: We found three pathologic proved cases of prostatic pure leiomyomas (0.02%) in our series and described the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging features of these prostatic leiomyomas. The imaging findings had similar features to lesions with moderate or high suspicion for significant cancer (Likert 4 or 5) when localized both in the transitional zone or in the peripheral zone of the gland. Conclusion: Pure prostatic leiomyomas had imaging findings on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging that mimicked usual adenocarcinomas on this test. Radiologists, urologists and pathologists must be aware of this entity and its imaging features.

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever os achados de imagem de tumores prostáticos não adenocarcinoma na ressonância magnética multiparamétrica. Métodos: Realizaram ressonância magnética multiparamétrica da próstata para detecção de câncer de próstata 200 pacientes de agosto de 2013 a setembro de 2014, seguida por biópsia com fusão de imagens de ultrassonografia/ressonância magnética. Resultados: Encontramos três casos confirmados histologicamente de leiomiomas prostáticos puros (0,02%) em nossa casuística e descrevemos os achados da ressonância magnética multiparamétrica destes casos de leiomiomas. Os achados de imagem foram semelhantes aos de lesões com moderada ou alta suspeição para neoplasia clinicamente significante (Likert 4 ou 5) quando localizados na zona de transição ou zona periférica da próstata. Conclusão: Leiomiomas puros da próstata tiveram achados de imagem na ressonância magnética multiparamétrica que mimetizaram adenocarcinomas. Radiologistas, urologistas e patologistas devem estar cientes destas entidades e seus achados de imagem.

Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Leiomyoma/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Ultrasonography, Interventional , Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional , Image-Guided Biopsy , Leiomyoma/pathology