T2-Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery Mismatch Sign in Grade II and III Gliomas: Is There a Coexisting T2-Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Mismatch?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (T2-FLAIR) mismatch sign in diffuse gliomas is associated with an equivalent pattern of disparity in signal intensities when comparing T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). METHODS: The level of correspondence between T2-FLAIR and T2-DWI evaluations in 34 World Health Organization grade II/III gliomas and interreader agreement among 3 neuroradiologists were assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficient and κ statistics, respectively. Tumoral apparent diffusion coefficient values were compared using t test. RESULTS: There was an almost perfect correspondence between the 2 mismatch signs (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.824 [95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.91]) that were associated with higher mean tumoral apparent diffusion coefficient (P < 0.01). Interreader agreement was substantial for T2-FLAIR (Fleiss κ = 0.724) and moderate for T2-DWI comparisons (Fleiss κ = 0.589) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The T2-FLAIR mismatch sign is usually reflected by a distinct microstructural pattern on DWI. The management of this tumor subtype may benefit from specifically tailored imaging assessments.

Second-Look Ultrasound Using Shear-Wave Elastography in MRI-Suspected Locoregional Recurrence of Breast Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate if second-look US using shear-wave elastography (SWE) can help to differentiate between benign and malignant changes in the postoperative breast after surgical treatment of breast carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SWE and related sonographic features were reviewed in 90 female patients with a history of surgical treatment of breast carcinoma and a suspicious lesion detected on a follow-up MRI scan. A single experienced radiologist performed all second-look US exams with SWE measurements placing a circular region of interest measuring 2 mm in diameter over the stiffest part of the lesion. Tissue samples for histopathological analysis were obtained during the same US examination via core-needle biopsy. RESULTS: Out of 90 lesions, 39 were proven malignant on histopathological analysis. 50 % of malignant lesions had Elmax values ranging from 128 to 199 kPa, and 50 % of benign lesions had Elmax values ranging from 65 to 169 kPa. The cut-off value of 171.2 kPa for Elmax shows a sensitivity of 59 % and specificity of 78.4 % for carcinoma recurrence, area under the curve 0.706 (CI95 % 0.6-0.81), P = 0.001. In univariate logistic models, restricted diffusion and stiffness on SWE, Elmax > 171.2 kPa, were shown as significant recurrence predictors. In the multivariate model, restricted diffusion remains significant independent recurrence predictor. With a recurrence prevalence of 43 %, the test sensitivity is 95 % (CI95 % 81-99 %) and the specificity is 75 % (CI95 % 60-85 %). CONCLUSION: Stiffer lesions should be considered suspicious on second-look US in the postoperative breast and SWE can be a helpful tool in identifying malignant lesions, especially if this is related to restricted diffusion on MRI exam. Lesion stiffness, however, should not be considered as an independent predictor of lesion malignancy in the postoperative breast, because of benign changes that can appear stiff on SWE, as well as carcinoma recurrences that may appear soft.

A young man with transitory hemiparesis and lung infiltrates.

In patients with neurological symptoms when other neurological causes are excluded, a differential diagnosis of neurosarcoidosis should be considered taking into account the clinical picture, radiological and laboratory findings. https://bit.ly/3oMSBap.

WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY SEE USING COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION IN MAMMOGRAPHY?

The main goal of this study was to compare the results of computer aided detection (CAD) analysis in screening mammography with the results independently obtained by two radiologists for the same samples and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of CAD for breast lesions. A total of 436 mammograms were analyzed with CAD. For each screening mammogram, the changes in breast tissue recognized by CAD were compared to the interpretations of two radiologists. The sensitivity and specificity of CAD for breast lesions were calculated using contingency table. The sensitivity of CAD for all lesions was 54% and specificity 16%. CAD sensitivity for suspicious lesions only was 86%. CAD sensitivity for microcalcifications was 100% and specificity 45%. CAD mainly 'mistook' glandular parenchyma, connective tissue and blood vessels for breast lesions, and blood vessel calcifications and axillary folds for microcalcifications. In this study, we confirmed CAD as an excellent tool for recognizing microcalcifications with 100% sensitivity. However, it should not be used as a stand-alone tool in breast screening mammography due to the high rate of false-positive results.

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Morphology Using Diffusion-Weighted and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Intermethod and Interobserver Agreement.

BACKGROUND: The capability of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for morphological analysis of breast lesions is underexplored. PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of DWI for assessment of morphological features of breast cancer by comparing DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI findings to determine intermethod and interobserver agreement. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Seventy-eight women with pathohistologically proven breast cancer. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T. DWI and DCE images. ASSESSMENT: Diffusion-weighted and DCE images were placed in two separate case sets. Three radiologists, blinded to all other information, independently evaluated each case set on two separate occasions. Lesions were interpreted according to the fifth edition of the ACR BI-RADS lexicon. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kappa (κ) statistics were calculated in order to assess intermethod and interobserver agreement. RESULTS: For values that attained statistical significance (P < 0.05), intermethod agreement ranged from fair (κ = 0.22) for nonmass internal patterns to significant (κ = 0.8) for lesion type. On DWI, interobserver agreement varied from fair (κ = 0.34) for mass shape to significant (κ = 0.75) for lesion type. On DCE MRI, interobserver agreement varied from fair (κ = 0.27) for irregular vs. spiculated mass margin to perfect (κ = 1) for circumscribed vs. noncircumscribed mass margin. DATA CONCLUSION: On the whole, there was moderate intermethod agreement. The values of interobserver agreement were mostly similar between DWI and DCE MRI. This suggests that DWI is applicable for morphological assessment of breast cancer, notwithstanding substantially inferior spatial resolution compared to DCE MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1381-1390.