Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 143
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: To evaluate the value of subtraction images when using MRI to assess liver tumors treated with percutaneous ablation.
Materials And Methods: Following percutaneous ablation of 35 liver tumors, two abdominal radiologists, blinded to outcomes, independently reviewed follow-up MRI examinations for tumoral enhancement suggestive of residual/recurrent tumor and rated their confidence level. After one year, the readers reviewed the same examinations with added subtraction images. Accuracy of the detection of residual/recurrent tumor and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR; for tumoral enhancement-to-liver, tumoral enhancement-to-ablation zone, and ablation zone-to-liver) were calculated with and without subtraction images and compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Interobserver variability was computed using Kappa (κ) statistics.
Results: Residual/recurrent tumor was present in 8 (23.5%) of 34 tumors. Accuracy of detecting residual/recurrent tumor with subtraction images and interobserver agreement (κ = 0.72, good) were better than accuracy of detecting residual/recurrent tumor and interobserver agreement (κ = 0.57, moderate) of enhanced MR images without subtraction. Mean CNR of subtraction images was significantly higher than that of enhanced MR images for tumoral enhancement-to-liver (0.2 ± 5 versus 11.6 ± 14.4, P = 0.03), tumoral enhancement-to-ablation zone (10.1 ± 12.5 versus 34.4 ± 29.4, P = 0.02), and ablation zone-to-liver (11.8 ± 13.3 versus 102.5 ± 238.4, P = 0.03).
Conclusion: When using MRI, subtraction images help both detect and exclude residual/recurrent tumor following percutaneous liver ablations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23827 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!