No abstract available.
Humans ; Physicians, Family*

No abstract available.
Thorax*

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of CT and 18F-FDG PET for detecting peritoneal metastasis in patients with gastric carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred-twelve patients who underwent a histologic confirmative exam or treatment (laparotomy, n = 107; diagnostic laparoscopy, n = 4; peritoneal washing cytology, n = 1) were retrospectively enrolled. All the patients underwent CT and 18F-FDG PET scanning for their preoperative evaluation. The sensitivities, specificities and accuracies of CT and 18F-FDG PET imaging for the detection of peritoneal metastasis were calculated and then compared using Fisher's exact probability test (p < 0.05), on the basis of the original preoperative reports. In addition, two board-certified radiologists and two board-certified nuclear medicine physicians independently reviewed the CT and PET scans, respectively. A receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic performance of CT and 18F-FDG PET imaging for detecting peritoneal metastasis. RESULTS: Based on the original preoperative reports, CT and 18F-FDG PET showed sensitivities of 76.5% and 35.3% (p = 0.037), specificities of 91.6% and 98.9% (p = 0.035), respectively, and equal accuracies of 89.3% (p = 1.0). The receptor operating characteristics curve analysis showed a significantly higher diagnostic performance for CT (Az = 0.878) than for PET (Az = 0.686) (p = 0.004). The interobserver agreement for detecting peritoneal metastasis was good (κ value = 0.684) for CT and moderate (κ value = 0.460) for PET. CONCLUSION: For the detection of peritoneal metastasis, CT was more sensitive and showed a higher diagnostic performance than PET, although CT had a relatively lower specificity than did PET.
*Tomography, Emission-Computed ; Stomach Neoplasms/*pathology ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Retrospective Studies ; Radiopharmaceuticals/diagnostic use ; ROC Curve ; *Positron-Emission Tomography ; Peritoneal Neoplasms/*radiography/*radionuclide imaging/*secondary ; Middle Aged ; Male ; Iohexol/analogs & derivatives/diagnostic use ; Humans ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18/diagnostic use ; Female ; Contrast Media ; Aged, 80 and over ; Aged ; Adult ; Adolescent

PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate differences in ultrasonographic findings between malignant and benign mammary duct ectasia. METHODS: From January 2003 to June 2005, 54 surgically proven mammary duct ectasia lesions depicted on sonograms were included in this study. We evaluated the ultrasonographic (US) findings in terms of involved ductal location, size, margin, intraductal echogenicity, presence of an intraductal nodule, calcification, ductal wall thickening and echo changes of the surrounding breast parenchyma. The US findings were correlated with the pathological features. RESULTS: Of the 54 lesions, 46 lesions were benign and eight lesions were malignant. Benign lesions included an inflammatory change (n=7), ductal epithelial hyperplasia (n=7), fibrocystic change (n=18), intraductal papilloma (n=11), atypical ductal hyperplasia (n=2) and sclerosing adenosis (n=1). Malignant lesions included ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n=6), infiltrating ductal carcinoma (n=1) and mucinous carcinoma (n=1). On US images, the peripheral ductal location, an ill-defined margin, ductal wall thickening and a hypoechoic change of the surrounding parenchyma were features significantly associated with malignant duct ectasia. CONCLUSION: For ill-defined peripheral duct ectasia with ductal wall thickening and surrounding hypoechogenicity as depicted on US, the possibility of malignancy should be considered and radiologists should not hesitate to recommend a prompt biopsy.
Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous ; Biopsy ; Breast ; Breast Neoplasms ; Carcinoma, Ductal ; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating ; Dilatation, Pathologic ; Hyperplasia ; Papilloma, Intraductal ; Ultrasonography, Mammary