Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&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
We present a case of restricted diffusion in a ring-enhancing cerebellar metastasis in a 58-year-old man. Diffusion imaging showed restriction with low apparent diffusion coefficient values within the cavity. Diagnosis of abscess was suggested based on radiological findings. A suspicious lung nodule was found in the systemic evaluation, and histological examination of the brain lesion confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma with mucoid content confirmed by further specific pathological tests. We discuss the reason of diffusion findings and the importance of the correct interpretation of this technique in a clinical situation. Our case confirms previous hypothesis about restricted diffusion related to mucoid content in metastasis.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181e7c291 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!