Emeritus Faculty, Acad Council, Radiology
This article describes the MR appearances of the six most common congenital anomalies of the inferior vena cava. As a basis for understanding those anomalies, it describes the embryology of the inferior vena cava, based on an actual study of embryos and fetuses. The article takes a fresh look at the original research in this area, discusses the possible embryogenesis of the relevant anomalies, and describes different opinions on that subject, where different opinions exist.
View details for Web of Science ID A1992HT43600008
View details for PubMedID 1598750
For patients with prostate cancer, diagnostic imaging can play three roles: screening, staging, and monitoring. Bayesian analysis dictates that if the prior probability of cancer is relatively low or if the consequences of a false-positive result are unacceptable, the test must be optimally specific. If the prior probability of cancer is high or if the consequences of missing it are unacceptable, the test must be optimally sensitive. For screening, the consequences of a miss are slight, and the consequences of labeling an insignificant cancer significant are serious. Thus, a very specific test is required. No current imaging modality fulfills this criterion. For staging, the prior probability of significant disease is relatively high, and the consequences of a miss serious, so a very sensitive test is required. Transrectal sonography, plus biopsy under sonographic control, fulfills this criterion for local disease, as does a bone scan for bone metastases. For monitoring, the prior probability is high, and the consequences of a miss serious, so a very sensitive test is needed. The bone scan is sensitive for bone metastases. Although CT is not sensitive for detecting lymph node metastases, it has practical clinical advantages over other imaging modalities for monitoring purposes in that it can detect disease in multiple structures at once. It is the only test that can monitor prostate size, the size of the lymph nodes, and whether hydronephrosis or liver metastases are present all in the scope of one examination.
View details for Web of Science ID A1991FL56100011
View details for PubMedID 2024008
Using Bayesian and decision analytical concepts, we can define the ideal characteristics of any screening test for cancer of the prostate: high specificity, reasonably high sensitivity, noninvasiveness, low cost, and low interobserver variability. Computed tomography (CT) fails as a test, since it cannot show the internal structure of the prostate; MRI is too expensive and has an unacceptably poor specificity. Transrectal sonography does have many desirable characteristics, including relatively high sensitivity and, if no biopsy is done, low cost and noninvasiveness. But it has an unacceptably low specificity for early, clinically significant lesions: over half of all patients tested will have a positive result, requiring a confirming biopsy, which means that transrectal sonography will in the end be too invasive and too expensive. Therefore, we cannot recommend transrectal sonography as a primary screening tool for cancer of the prostate at this time.
View details for Web of Science ID A1990DD91500020
View details for PubMedID 2188931