A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Hepatic tumor detection: MR imaging and conventional US versus pulse-inversion harmonic US of NC100100 during its reticuloendothelial system-specific phase. | LitMetric

Purpose: To compare conventional ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with contrast agent-enhanced US for detection of VX-2 liver tumors in rabbits.

Materials And Methods: Conventional gray-scale liver US was performed in 65 rabbits, 38 of which had VX-2 hepatic tumor implants. Twenty minutes after contrast agent injection, gray-scale pulse-inversion harmonic US images of the liver-specific phase were obtained. Following sacrifice of the animals, T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging was performed at 4-mm intervals. Pathologic analysis was performed as the reference standard. The capability of each imaging modality to correctly depict tumor presence or absence and the number of tumors was compared.

Results: Conventional US correctly depicted the presence or absence of tumors in 54 rabbits, for an accuracy of 83%, sensitivity of 71%, and specificity of 100%. With contrast-enhanced US, accuracy increased to 92% (60 correct cases); sensitivity, to 87%; and specificity, to 100%. MR imaging facilitated 56 correct diagnoses, for an accuracy of 86%, sensitivity of 82%, and specificity of 93%. There was a marginally significant difference between US with and US without contrast agent (P =.07) but not between MR imaging and contrast-enhanced US (P > or = .34). When the numbers of correctly detected tumors were compared, contrast-enhanced US performed significantly better than MR imaging (P =.02) and conventional US (P =.04).

Conclusion: There was no significant difference between contrast-enhanced US and MR imaging in the detection of hepatic tumors, whereas contrast-enhanced US had the highest accuracy (92%) of the three modalities studied.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2223001786DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hepatic tumor
8
imaging
8
pulse-inversion harmonic
8
contrast agent
8
presence absence
8
specificity 100%
8
conventional
5
tumors
5
contrast-enhanced
5
tumor detection
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!