Magnetic Resonance Neurography in Chronic Lumbosacral and Pelvic Pain: Diagnostic and Management Impact-Institutional Audit

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Low back and pelvic pain are among the most prevalent conditions worldwide, with major social and economic costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance neurography (MRN) of lumbosacral plexus in the management and outcomes of these patients with chronic pain.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with chronic lumbosacral and pelvic pain referred for MRN over a year were included. Preimaging and postimaging clinical diagnosis and treatment, pain levels, and location were recorded. Pain-free survival was compared between treatments using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients with mean age 53.7 ± 14.8 years and a male/female ratio of 1:1.53 were included. Of these patients, 115 presented with radiculopathy (57%), 56 with pelvic pain (28%), and 31 with groin pain (15%). Mean initial pain level was 6.9 ± 1.9. Mean symptom duration was 4.21 ± 5.86 years. Of these patients, 143 (71%) had a change in management because of MRN. After MRN, reduction in pain levels was observed in 21 of 32 patients receiving conservative treatment (66%), 42 of 67 receiving injections (63%), and 27 of 33 receiving surgery (82%). Follow-ups were available in 131 patients. Median pain-free survival was 12 months. Patients treated with surgery had significantly lower pain recurrence than patients receiving other treatments in the same time frame (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-9.2; P = 0.0061).

CONCLUSIONS

MRN use in chronic lumbosacral and pelvic pain led to a meaningful change in diagnosis and treatment. After MRN, conservative treatment and injections provided pain relief; however, patients benefited more from surgery than from any other treatment.

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography-Which modality provides more accurate prediction of margin status in specimen radiography?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reliability of tumor margin assessment in specimen radiography (SR) using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in comparison to postoperative histopathology margin status as the gold standard.

METHODS

After ethics committee approval, 102 consecutive patients who underwent breast conservative surgery for nonpalpable proven breast cancer were prospectively included. All patients underwent ultrasound/mammography-guided wire localization of their lesions. After excision, each specimen was marked for orientation and imaged using FFDM and DBT. Two blinded radiologists (R1, R2) independently analyzed images acquired with both modalities. Readers identified in which direction the lesion was closest to the specimen margin and to measure the margin width. Their findings were compared with the final histopathological analysis. True positive margin status was defined as a margin measuring <1mm for invasive cancer and 5mm for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at imaging and pathology.

RESULTS

For FFDM, correct margin direction was identified in 45 cases (44%) by R1 and in 37 cases (36%) by R2. For DBT, 69 cases (68%) were correctly identified by R1 and 70 cases (69%) by R2. Overall accuracy was 40% for FFDM and 69% for DBT; the difference was statistically significant (p<0.0001). Sensitivity in terms of correct assessment of margin status was significantly better for DBT than FFDM (77% versus 62%).

CONCLUSION

SR using DBT is significantly superior to FFDM regarding identification of the closest margin and sensitivity in assessment of margin status.