Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hosten, N.
Right arrow Articles by Felix, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hosten, N.
Right arrow Articles by Felix, R.

Radiology, Vol 202, 61-67, Copyright © 1997 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Uveal melanoma: detection of extraocular growth with MR imaging and US

N Hosten, N Bornfeld, R Wassmuth, AJ Lemke, B Sander, NE Bechrakis and R Felix
Department of Radiology, Virchow Klinikum, Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, Germany.

PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of ultrasound (US) in the detection of extraocular extension of uveal melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 70 patients, the diagnosis of melanoma and absence or presence of extraocular growth were confirmed with histologic examination (13 patients) or with ophthalmoscopy and surgery (57 patients). Unenhanced and enhanced T1-weighted and T2-weighted MR imaging was performed with surface coils at 1.5 T. A- and B-mode US scans were obtained with 8- and 10-MHz probes, respectively. RESULTS: Extraocular growth was confirmed in seven patients: Five patients had retrobulbar tumor, and two had optic nerve infiltration. US enabled detection in three cases, whereas six cases were diagnosed with MR imaging including both cases of optic nerve infiltration. False-positive findings were more frequent with US (n = 5) than with MR imaging (n = 1). CONCLUSION: MR imaging proved to be more sensitive and more specific than US in the detection of extraocular extension of uveal melanoma.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A.-J. Lemke, N. Hosten, N. Bornfeld, N. E. Bechrakis, A. Schüler, M. Richter, C. Stroszczynski, and R. Felix
Uveal Melanoma: Correlation of Histopathologic and Radiologic Findings by Using Thin-Section MR Imaging with a Surface Coil
Radiology, March 1, 1999; 210(3): 775 - 783.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Arch OphthalmolHome page
I. U. Scott, T. G. Murray, and J. R. Hughes
Evaluation of Imaging Techniques for Detection of Extraocular Extension of Choroidal Melanoma
Arch Ophthalmol, July 1, 1998; 116(7): 897 - 899.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1997 by the Radiological Society of North America.