We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Detection of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: MR imaging versus CT.
Radiology 1997 Februrary
PURPOSE: To compare the use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomography (CT) in detection of recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five sets of CT and MR images were obtained in 34 patients. The images were placed in three categories: (a) clinically or radiologically abnormal findings in patients who underwent biopsy (n = 16), (b) clinically normal and radiologically borderline findings in patients who were followed up clinically and radiologically (n = 10), and (c) clinically and radiologically normal findings in patients who were monitored only clinically (n = 19). All images were read by two observers independently.
RESULTS: There were nine positive and seven negative biopsy results. All patients in the latter two categories had normal findings at followup. CT had a sensitivity of 45% and 67% and a specificity of 64% and 70% for each of the two observers. MR imaging had a sensitivity of 56% (for both observers) and a specificity of 78% and 83%. The kappa test for interobserver concordance was 0.53 for CT and 0.66 for MR imaging.
CONCLUSION: Both modalities have relatively low sensitivity and moderate specificity in detection of tumor recurrence and in distinguishing recurrence from post-radiation therapy changes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five sets of CT and MR images were obtained in 34 patients. The images were placed in three categories: (a) clinically or radiologically abnormal findings in patients who underwent biopsy (n = 16), (b) clinically normal and radiologically borderline findings in patients who were followed up clinically and radiologically (n = 10), and (c) clinically and radiologically normal findings in patients who were monitored only clinically (n = 19). All images were read by two observers independently.
RESULTS: There were nine positive and seven negative biopsy results. All patients in the latter two categories had normal findings at followup. CT had a sensitivity of 45% and 67% and a specificity of 64% and 70% for each of the two observers. MR imaging had a sensitivity of 56% (for both observers) and a specificity of 78% and 83%. The kappa test for interobserver concordance was 0.53 for CT and 0.66 for MR imaging.
CONCLUSION: Both modalities have relatively low sensitivity and moderate specificity in detection of tumor recurrence and in distinguishing recurrence from post-radiation therapy changes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app