Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.

Purpose: To investigate the prevalence ratio of primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in the Asian population. Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for population-based studies in Asia published until August 5, 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis for PACG to POAG prevalence ratio using inverse variance–weighted random-effects meta-analyses so as to combine the study-specific measures of association. Between-study outcome variation (i.e., heterogeneity) was quantified with the I2 statistic. The multiple meta-regression analyses were performed in order to further account for the reasons for heterogeneity. Results: Twenty studies, with a total study population of 52,522 individuals, had been conducted in 13 countries. The pooled PACG to POAG prevalence ratio was 2.204 (95% confidence interval, 1.617–3.004) with high heterogeneity (p < 0.001). In multiple meta-regression model, prevalence of POAG is the most important predictor for heterogeneity (model importance, 0.954), followed continent (0.508), and publication year (0.222). For every additional elevation of POAG prevalence (i.e., increase of 1.0%), the PACG to POAG prevalence ratio is expected to rise by 0.471. Conclusions We estimated the pooled PACG to POAG prevalence ratio in the Asian population. The POAG prevalence is the most important factor to determine the PACG to POAG prevalence ratio.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Objective: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been performed for spinal tumors. However, the quantitative effect of SRS on postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors remains unknown. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SRS for treating postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of postoperative residual cervical dumbbell tumors from 1995 to 2020 in 2 tertiary institutions. Residual tumors underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed with clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up (observation group). Tumor regrowth rates were compared between the SRS and observation groups. Additionally, risk factors for tumor regrowth were analyzed. Results: A total of 28 cervical dumbbell tumors were incompletely resected. Eight patients were in the SRS group, and 20 in the observation group. The mean regrowth rate was not significantly lower (p = 0.784) in the SRS group (0.18 ± 0.29 mm/mo) than in the observation group (0.33 ± 0.40 mm/mo). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, SRS was not a significant variable (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–1.79; p = 0.336). Conclusion SRS did not significantly decrease the tumor regrowth rate in our study. We believe that achieving maximal resection during the initial operation is more important than postoperative adjuvant SRS.