We have located links that may give you full text access.
The Value of MRI in Distinguishing Subtypes of Lipomatous Extremity Tumors Needs Reassessment in the Era of MDM2 and CDK4 Testing.
Sarcoma 2018
Introduction: Extremity lipomas and well-differentiated liposarcomas (WDLs) are difficult to distinguish on MR imaging. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of MRI interpretation using MDM2 amplification, via fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), as the gold standard for pathologic diagnosis. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the utility of a diagnostic formula proposed in the literature.
Methods: We retrospectively collected 49 patients with lipomas or WDLs utilizing MDM2 for pathologic diagnosis. Four expert readers interpreted each patient's MRI independently and provided a diagnosis. Additionally, a formula based on imaging characteristics (i.e. tumor depth, diameter, presence of septa, and internal cystic change) was used to predict the pathologic diagnosis. The accuracy and reliability of imaging-based diagnoses were then analyzed in comparison to the MDM2 pathologic diagnoses.
Results: The accuracy of MRI readers was 73.5% (95% CI 61-86%) with substantial interobserver agreement ( κ =0.7022). The formula had an accuracy of 71%, which was not significantly different from the readers ( p =0.71). The formula and expert observers had similar sensitivity (83% versus 83%) and specificity (64.5% versus 67.7%; p =0.659) for detecting WDLs.
Conclusion: The accuracy of both our readers and the formula suggests that MRI remains unreliable for distinguishing between lipoma and WDLs.
Methods: We retrospectively collected 49 patients with lipomas or WDLs utilizing MDM2 for pathologic diagnosis. Four expert readers interpreted each patient's MRI independently and provided a diagnosis. Additionally, a formula based on imaging characteristics (i.e. tumor depth, diameter, presence of septa, and internal cystic change) was used to predict the pathologic diagnosis. The accuracy and reliability of imaging-based diagnoses were then analyzed in comparison to the MDM2 pathologic diagnoses.
Results: The accuracy of MRI readers was 73.5% (95% CI 61-86%) with substantial interobserver agreement ( κ =0.7022). The formula had an accuracy of 71%, which was not significantly different from the readers ( p =0.71). The formula and expert observers had similar sensitivity (83% versus 83%) and specificity (64.5% versus 67.7%; p =0.659) for detecting WDLs.
Conclusion: The accuracy of both our readers and the formula suggests that MRI remains unreliable for distinguishing between lipoma and WDLs.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
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