These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: MR imaging in the assessment of residual tumour following inadequate primary excision of soft tissue sarcomas.
    Author: Davies AM, Mehr A, Parsonage S, Evans N, Grimer RJ, Pynsent PB.
    Journal: Eur Radiol; 2004 Mar; 14(3):506-13. PubMed ID: 14557894.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this retrospective study was twofold: firstly, to assess the ability of MR imaging in confirming/excluding the presence of residual tumour following inadequate primary excision of soft tissue sarcomas; and secondly, to assess the accuracy of the original radiologists report as compared with a retrospective review of the scan hard copy in confirming/excluding. A total of 111 cases were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of inadequate primary surgery followed by a MR scan and subsequent wide re-excision of the surgical field. The gold standard for the assessment of the MR imaging studies was histological examination of the re-excision specimens. Histological examination revealed residual tumour in 63 (56.7%) cases. In 48 cases the residual tumour was classified macroscopic (maximum diameter >10 mm) and 15 cases microscopic (maximum diameter </=10 mm). The original radiologists reports failed to indicate the presence or absence of tumour in 7 (6.3%) cases. In the remaining 104 cases the diagnostic performance of MR imaging gave a sensitivity of 0.64, specificity of 0.93, positive predictive value of 0.93 and negative predictive value of 0.67. In 12 of the 21 false-negative scans the residual tumour was microscopic. Subjective assessment of the radiologist's reports indicated that the proportion of equivocal reports was much higher in both the false-negative and false-positive groups as compared with the true groups. An unblinded retrospective review of the scan hard copies only differed from the original radiologists report in 8 (7.2%) cases. Contrast-enhanced sequences were not routinely obtained in this series. The results suggest that the poor negative predictive value can be attributed more to limitations of the MR scan and not to failures in observation or interpretation by the radiologists. Despite the low negative predictive value, MR imaging remains useful in planning the re-excision surgery by identifying the site and extent of the original operation and size of major residual tumour.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]