Can Hounsfield units on chest CT characterize breast nodules as cystic or solid?
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
We report the results of our retrospective analysis of the ability of standard chest computed tomography (CT) scans to correctly differentiate cystic from solid lesions. MModal Catalyst identified 27 women who had an ultrasound of the breast that was recommended because of a chest CT finding between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. All images were reviewed by a radiologist fellowship trained in both breast imaging and cardiothoracic radiology (MS). Ultrasound characterization of lesion density as cystic or solid was considered the gold standard for this study. Analysis of CT scans was performed to identify lesions of interest corresponding to ultrasound abnormality; average, minimum, and maximum Hounsfield units (HUs) were measured. If masses had any solid component, they were considered solid. Twenty masses were solid, and 7 masses were cystic on ultrasound. Thirteen studies were performed without contrast and 14 were performed with contrast. On non-contrast studies, the average HU for cystic lesions was 19 compared to 38 HU for solid (P=0.007). On contrast studies, the average HU for cystic lesions was 16 compared to 53 HU for solid (P=0.002). Cystic lesions did not change with contrast significantly. Solid lesions enhanced with contrast; average HU 38 without contrast to 53 HU with contrast. Chest CT accurately diagnosed breast masses as cystic or solid with or without contrast.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Can Hounsfield units on chest CT characterize breast nodules as cystic or solid?
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2024
- Éditeur
- AME Publishing Company
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.