AJR Custom publishing of AJR articles and ARRS Cat. Course
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Randell, C.
Right arrow Articles by Steiner, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Randell, C.
Right arrow Articles by Steiner, R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 141, Issue 3, 489-496
Copyright © 1983 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of posterior fossa tumors

CP Randell, AG Collins, IR Young, R Haywood, DJ Thomas, MJ McDonnell, JS Orr, GM Bydder, and RE Steiner

The results of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) examinations in 26 patients with histologic (15 cases) or clinical (11 cases) diagnoses of tumors within the posterior fossa were reviewed and compared with x-ray computed tomography (CT). Most tumors displayed an increase in T1 and T2 relative to brain. All seven benign tumors were seen with both CT and NMR, although one of these cases initially was misdiagnosed on the basis of the CT findings. The extent of these tumors was equally well shown with CT and NMR in three cases but was demonstrated better by NMR in four. Calcification was seen with CT but not with NMR in two of these patients. All 19 malignant tumors were demonstrated with NMR. Two of these were not seen with CT. In 12 patients minimal changes consisting of a poorly defined low-attenuation are or minor displacement of the fourth ventricle were noted with CT, although much more extensive changes were seen with NMR. In three patients the changes were equally well shown with both techniques. In the remaining two cases, the extent of the tumor was defined more accurately with contrast-enhanced CT, where the margin between tumor and surrounding edema was better seen than with NMR. Mass effects were better demonstrated with NMR in 13 patients and equally well shown in six. Bony erosion was better demonstrated with CT in two cases. Hydrocephalus with periventricular edema was seen in five patients; in each it was more clearly demonstrated with NMR. The NMR diagnosis of tumors is discussed and relevant new developments are summarized.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck SurgHome page
M. J. Maslan, J. T. Latack, J. L. Kemink, and M. D. Graham
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Temporal Bone and Cerebellopontine Angle Lesions
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, April 1, 1986; 112(4): 410 - 415.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1983 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.