Résumé
Objective ToevaluatevaluesofADCofDWIinmolecularsubtypeofnonmassenhancedbreastcancerandprovidereference forclinicaltherapeuticplan.Methods Nonmassenhancedbreastcancerincluding46casesofductalcarcinomainsitu(DCIS)and58 casesofinvasiveductalcancer(IDC)wereprovedbyhistopathologyandexperiencedMRIofroutinesequence,DWIanddynamicenhancement.All thepatientsweredividedintobothgroups,DCISgroupandIDCgroup.Accordingtoimmunohistochemicalcharacteristic,molecularsubytpes,Luminal A,LuminalBandnon-Luminalwerefurthergroupedineachgroup.TheADCvaluesoflesionsweremeasuredonADCmapsofb=0s/mm2and b=800s/mm2.TheADCvaluesofnormalbreastgland,DCISandIDC,ofmolecularsubtypeinternaleachgroup,ofsamemolecular subtypebetweengroupswerestatisticallycomparedI.fthedatahadmarkeddifference,ROCcurveofADCvaluesweredrewfortestingtheefficacy diagnosis.Results TheROImeasuredwere104positionsinnormalglands,86inDCISand115inIDCinwhichtheADCwererespectively (1.77±0.27)mm2/s,(1.08±0.14)mm2/sand (0.89±0.15)mm2/sthathadstatisticaldifference.TheADCvaluesofLuminalA, LuminalBandnon-LuminalinDCISwererespectively(11.1±01.5)mm2/s,(1.04±0.13)mm2/sand(1.04±0.13)mm2/sthathadn’tstatistical difference.TheADCvaluesofLuminalA,LuminalBandnon-LuminalinIDCwererespectively(0.95±0.19)mm2/s,(0.87±0.13)mm2/sand (0.84±0.15)mm2/sthathadstatisticaldifference.TheADCvalueshadstatisticaldifferenceinsame molecularsubtypebetween DCISandIDC.InanalysisofROCofIDC,AUCofADCvalueswererespectively0.561,0.632and0.520,theirsensitivity>81%,but specificitywaslower.Conclusion TheADCvaluesofIDCinLuminalA wasmarkedhigherthanLuminalBandADCvaluesofnon-Luminalwaslowest.TheADCvaluesofLuminalA,LuminalBandnon-LuminalinDCISwerehigherthancorrespondingmolecular subtypeofIDCthatmeansADCvaluescouldindicatemolecular subtypeinformationofbreastcancerandprovidereferencefor clinicaltherapeuticplan.
Résumé
Objective To: explore the enhancing effect of cyclic gadolinium chelates MRI contrast medium-Gatedotera of prostate hyperplasia. Methods: MRI manifestations of dynamic enhancing contrast (DEC) and delay enhancing findings of 75 patients with prostate hyperplasia in central zone were analyzed retrospectively. According to contrast medium, the patients were divided into 4 groups, including observed group (Gatedotera, n=20), control group 1 (Magnevist, n=15), control group 2 (Consun, n=16) and control group 3 (Omniscan, n=24). The basic and maximal signal intensities, enhancing degree, time to peak and rising slope of DEC curve of prostate hyperplasia nodes were compared among groups. Taken musculi obturator internus and imaging noise as references, the enhancing degree and CNR of parenchyma and capsule of hyperplasia nodes were obtained and compared among groups, and the displaying of capsule of each group was also analyzed. Results: Time to peak were significantly different among groups (F=3.812, P=0.014), of observe group was clearly shorter than of control group 2 (P=0.021), of control group 2 was clearly longer than of control group 1 (P=0.011) and control group 3 (P=0.023), respectively. The enhancing degrees and CNR of capsule were all statistical different among groups (all P0.05). Conclusion: The enhancing effect of cyclic gadolinium chelates was same as linear gadolinium chelates, while cyclic gadolinium chelates in capsule displaying was superior to linear gadolinium chelates.
Résumé
Purpose To investigate the effect of sensitivity on image quality and radiation dosage of digital chest radiography. Materials and Methods A total of 300 healthy people undergoing chest X-ray examination were randomly enrolled and divided into two groups according to body weight (150 people with normal weight and 150 overweight), which were further randomly divided into three subgroups (S200 subgroup with low-sensitivity, S400 subgroup with mid-sensitivity, S800 subgroup with high sensitivity, each subgroup contained 50 people). With other parameters unchanged, digital chest photography with different sensitivities was performed to each subgroup (S200, S400 and S800, respectively), and then uploaded the data to PACS and recorded mAs value and dose area product (DAP) value for each time. Then the image quality was assessed by three doctors in terms of mAs value, DAP, image quality score and noise score. Results In all subgroups of normal weight, differences on mAs and DAP were significant (F=1443.191-1829.895, P0.05). In all overweight subgroups, differences in mAs, DAP, image quality score and noise score were significant (F=163.358-290.656, PS400>S800 (F=0.626-3.210, PS400>S800 (F=0.416-1.416, P0.05). In overweight group, there was no difference between subgroups of S200 and S400 (F=0.120-0.145, P>0.05); whilst differences between subgroups of S200 and S800 were significant, the same appeared in subgroups of S400 and S800 (F=1.655-2.360, P<0.05). Conclusion Radiation dose can be effectively controlled by regulating sensitivity with image quality unaffected. It is advisable to choose high-sensitivity photography for patients with normal weight and low or mid-sensitivity photography for overweight patients.