Search

The objective of our study was to intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced breast MRI.Forty-seven women (mean age +/- SD, 50.8 +/- 12.9 years) with breast lesions classified as BI-RADS category 3, 4, or 5 for suspicion of malignancy underwent two identical MR examinations at 1.5 T separated by 48-72 hours. T1-weighted gradient-echo images were acquired before contrast administration and at 2-minute intervals after the randomized injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine or gadobenate dimeglumine at 2 mL/s. Two blinded readers evaluated randomized image sets for lesion detection and differentiation as benign or malignant compared with histology. The McNemar exact test and the generalized estimating equation (GEE) were used to compare lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).Histopathology data were available for 78 lesions. Significantly more lesions overall (75/78 [96%] vs 62/78 [79%], respectively; p = 0.0002) and significantly more malignant lesions (49/50 [98%] vs 38/50 [76%]; p = 0.0009) were detected with gadobenate dimeglumine than gadopentetate dimeglumine. All detected malignant lesions were correctly diagnosed with both agents. More detected benign lesions were correctly diagnosed with gadobenate dimeglumine than with gadopentetate dimeglumine (20/26 [77%] vs 17/24 [71%], respectively). Differentiation of lesions was significantly (p = 0.0001) better with gadobenate dimeglumine. Significantly better diagnostic performance was noted with gadobenate dimeglumine than with gadopentetate dimeglumine, respectively, for sensitivity (98.0% vs 76.0%; p = 0.0064), accuracy (88.5% vs 69.2%; p = 0.0004), PPV (86.0% vs 76.0%; p = 0.0321), and NPV (95.2% vs 57.1%; p = 0.0003).Lesion detection and malignant-benign differentiation is significantly better with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine than 0.1 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine.

SUMMARY A complication following tooth extraction: a case report of chronic suppurative osteomyelitis. Objective. This article presents a case report about the surgery treatment of chronic suppurative osteomyelitis following a tooth extraction. Methods. Cone beam computed tomography revealed a sequestrum bone formation that required the sequestrectomy and the debridement of the involved area. The prescription of oral penicillin and metronidazole were necessary after and before the surgery. Also 20 sessions of hyperbaric oxygen therapy were important for the healing of the marrow space. Results. The histologic test confirmed the diagnosis of "Chronic suppurative osteomyelitis". Clinically the post-operative course showed no complications but a good healing of the bone tissue. Culture reports revealed two microorganisms, strep- tococcus viridans and staphylococcus, that are sensitive to penicillin. Conclusions. Clinical results confirmed the validity of the sequestrectomy and the debridement of the involved area for the treatment of chronic suppurative osteomyelitis. Such approach has always to be preferred because it guarantees the healing of bone tissue.

Purpose: To establish the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in comparison to x-ray mammography and ultrasound for breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma. Materials and Methods: Two hundred thirty-eight women with dense breast parenchyma who were suspicious for breast cancer or inconclusive for the presence of breast lesions based on clinical examination, ultrasound or x-ray mammography, and who underwent breast MRI at 1.5 T before and after administration of 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine were evaluated. Lesions considered malignant (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5) on x-ray mammography and/or ultrasound and as BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 on MRI were evaluated histologically. Other lesions were followed up at 6 and/or 18 months. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values) of each technique was determined and compared using a general linear mixed model with appropriate correction for multiplicity. Results: At final diagnosis 121 of 238 (50.8%) women had one or more confirmed malignant lesions, whereas 117 (49.2%) had benign lesions or no lesions. Among 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques more lesions (malignant and benign) were detected with breast MRI (n = 135) than with x-ray mammography (n = 85) or ultrasound (n = 107) and diagnostic confidence was greater. In terms of patient-based diagnostic accuracy breast MRI was significantly (P[r] < 0.0001) superior to both x-ray mammography and ultrasound (96.9% accuracy for MRI vs. 60.8% for mammography and 66.0% for US). Malignant lesions were histologically confirmed in 55 of 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques. Breast MRI detected more cases of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral disease and fewer misdiagnoses occurred. Overall, breast MRI led to a modification of the surgical approach for 28 (23.1%) of the 121 women with diagnosed malignant disease. Conclusion: Breast MRI should be considered for routine breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma.