The essence of the Japan Radiological Society/Japanese College of Radiology Imaging Guideline
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Yasuyuki Yamashita ; Sadayuki Murayama ; Masahiro Okada…
- 关键词：CT ; MRI ; Nuclear medicine ; Imaging guideline ; Evidence level ; MINDS
- 刊名：Japanese Journal of Radiology
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：January 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：34
- 期：1
- 页码：43-79
- 全文大小：5,130 KB
- 参考文献：1.Minds guide for developing clinical practice guidelines; 2007. http://minds4.jcqhc.or.jp/minds/glgl/glgl.pdf#search=’GLGL .
2.OCEBM level of evidence. http://www.cebm.net/mod_product/design/files/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf .
3.Imamura K, et al. Percentage of facilities with a CT or MR system with a specialist in diagnostic imaging: a longitudinal survey. JCR News. 2012;187:19–24.
4.OECD. OECD health data; 2011. Accessed 1 May 2012.
5.New Med Jpn. Issues featuring the numbers of CT and MR systems by the machine type (relevant years).
6.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Surveys of Medical Care Activities in Public Health Insurance (relevant years).
7.Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Survey of medical institutions; 2008.
8.Imamura K, et al. Changes in the NHI points related to CT and MR: reference materials and discussion. JCR News. 2012;188:13–20.
9.Imamura K, et al. Effects of aging society on diagnostic imaging. JCR News. 2010;179:16–21.
10.Imamura K, et al. The state CT examination, presented again: Japan and foreign countries. JCR News. 2011;182:10–6.
11.Hsiao WC. “Marketization”-the illusory magic pill. Health Econ. 1994;3:351–7.PubMed CrossRef
12.Grytten J, et al. Supplier inducement in a public health care system. J Health Econ. 1995;14:207–29.PubMed CrossRef
13.Yamada T, et al. An econometric analysis on supplier induced demand hypothesis. Q Soc Secur Res. 2002;38:39–51.
14.Berrington de Gonza’lez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 31. 2004;363(9406):345–51.CrossRef
15.“3.2% of cancer caused by diagnostic exposure”, Yomiuri Simbun, 10 Feb 2004, front page.
16.Sasaki Y. Thoughts about “CT exposure and carcinogenesis”. What those related to radiation in Japan must do. New Med Jpn. 2004;31:45–8.
17.Hashimoto M, et al. Study of INPH on neurological improvement (SINPHONI): diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus is supported by MRI-based scheme: a prospective cohort study. Cerebrospinal Fluid Res. 2010;7:18 (level 4).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
18.Iseki C, et al. Asymptomatic ventriculomegaly with features of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus on MRI (AVIM) in the elderly: a prospective study in a Japanese population. J Neurol Sci. 2009;277:54–7 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
19.Ishii K, et al. Clinical impact of the callosal angle in the diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2678–83 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
20.Adachi M, et al. Upper midbrain profile sign and cingulate sulcus sign: MRI findings on sagittal images in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus, Alzheimer’s disease, and progressive supranuclear palsy. Radiat Med. 2006;24:568–72 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
21.Algin O, et al. Proton MR spectroscopy and white matter hyperintensities in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and other dementias. Br J Radiol. 2010;83:747–52 (level 3).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
22.Algin O, et al. Morphologic features and flow void phenomenon in normal pressure hydrocephalus and other dementias. Are they really significant? Acad Radiol. 2009;16:1373–80 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
23.Luetmer PH, et al. Measurement of cerebrospinal fluid flow at the cerebral aqueduct by use of phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging: technique validation and utility in diagnosing idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 2002;50:534–42 (level 3).PubMed
24.Al-Zain FT, et al. The role of cerebrospinal fluid flow study using phase contrast MR imaging in diagnosing idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2008;102:119–23 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
25.Hattingen E, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging in patients with adult chronic idiopathic hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 2010;66:917–24 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
26.Tullberg M, et al. White matter diffusion is higher in Binswanger disease than in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurol Scand. 2009;120:226–34 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
27.Ishii K, et al. Voxel-based analysis of gray matter and CSF space in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2008;25:329–35 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
28.Yamashita F, et al. Detection of changes in cerebrospinal fluid space in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus using voxel-based morphometry. Neuroradiology. 2010;52:381–6 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
29.Sasaki H, et al. Cerebral perfusion pattern of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus studied by SPECT and statistical brain mapping. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:39–45 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
30.Kobayashi S, et al. Two-layer appearance on brain perfusion SPECT in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. A qualitative analysis by using easy Z-score Imaging System, eZIS. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2009;28:330–7 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
31.Chung EM, et al. From the archives of the AFIP: pediatric orbit tumors and tumorlike lesions: neuroepithelial lesions of the ocular globe and optic nerve. RadioGraphics. 2007;27:1159–86 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
32.Peyster RG, et al. Intraocular tumors: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;168:773–9 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
33.Olivercorna H, et al. CT diagnosis of retinoblastoma with histopathologic correlations. Eur Radiol. 1994;4:307–13 (level 4).CrossRef
34.Beets-Tan RGH, et al. Retinoblastoma: CT and MRI. Neuroradiology. 1994;36:59–62 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
35.de Graaf P, et al. Guidelines for imaging retinoblastoma: imaging principles and MRI standardization. Pediatr Radiol. 2012;42:2–14 (level 5).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
36.Galluzzi P, et al. Is CT still useful in the study protocol of retinoblastoma? AJNR. 2009;30:1760–5 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
37.Brrise HJ, et al. Relevance of CT and MRI in retinoblastoma for the diagnosis of postlaminar invasion with normal-size optic nerve: a retrospective study of 150 patients with histological comparison. Pediatri Radiol. 2007;37:649–56 (level 4).CrossRef
38.Mafee MF, et al. Malignant uveal melanoma and similar lesions studied by computed tomography. Radiology. 1985;156:403–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
39.Mafee MF, et al. Malignant uveal melanoma and simulating lesions: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1986;160:773–80 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
40.Matsumoto S, et al. MR imaging of intraocular lesions: a comparison with CT. Jpn J Radiol Sco. 1992;52:721–8 (level 4).
41.Scott IU, et al. Evaluation of imaging techniques for detection of extraocular extension of choroidal melanoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:897–9 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
42.Tomiyama N, et al. Anterior mediastinal tumors: diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:280–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
43.Murayama S, et al. Signal intensity characteristics of mediastinal cystic masses on T1-weighted MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;19:188–91 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
44.Jeung MY, et al. Imaging of cystic masses of the mediastinum. Radiographics. 2002;22:S79–93 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
45.Sadohara J, et al. Thymic epithelial tumors: comparison of CT and MR imaging findings of low-risk thymomas, high-risk thymomas, and thymic carcinomas. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60:70–9 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
46.Sakai S, et al. Differential diagnosis between thymoma and non-thymoma by dynamic MR imaging. Acta Radiol. 2002;43:262–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
47.Inoue A, et al. MR imaging of thymic epithelial tumors: correlation with World Health Organization classification. Radiat Med. 2006;24:171–81 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
48.Inaoka T, et al. Thymic hyperplasia and thymus gland tumors: differentiation with chemical shift MR imaging. Radiology. 2007;243:869–76 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
49.Sakai F, et al. Intrathoracic neurogenic tumors: MR-pathologic correlation. AJR. 1992;159:279–83 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
50.Torbicki A, et al. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: the task force for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2008;29:2276–315 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
51.British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee Pulmonary. Embolism Guideline Development Group: British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Thorax. 2003;58:470–83 (level 5).CrossRef
52.Fesmire FM, et al. Critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:628–652.PubMed CrossRef
53.JCS Joint Working Group. Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of pulmonary thromboembolism and deep vein thrombosis (JCS 2009). Circ J. 2011;75:1258–81 (level 5).CrossRef
54.Wells PS, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: Increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED d -dimer. Thromb Haemost. 2000;83:416–20 (level 2).PubMed
55.Stein PD, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2317–27 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
56.Bajc M, et al. EANM guidelines for ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy: Part 2. Algorithms and clinical considerations for diagnosis of pulmonary emboli with V/P (SPECT) and MDCT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1528–38 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
57.Bajc M, et al. EANM guidelines for ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy: Part 1. Pulmonary imaging with ventilation/perfusion single photon emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1356–70 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
58.Sano K, et al. Imaging study of early hepatocellular carcinoma: usefulness of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;261:834–44 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
59.Kawada N, et al. Improved diagnosis of well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma with gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Hepatol Res. 2010;40:930–6 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
60.Ichikawa T, et al. Detection and characterization of focal liver lesions: a Japanese phase III, multicenter comparison between gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography predominantly in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:133–41 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
61.Mita K, et al. Diagnostic sensitivity of imaging modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than 2 cm. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;7:4187–92 (level 4).CrossRef
62.Desmet VJ. Pathologic diagnosis of early hepatocellular carcinoma: a report of the international consensus group for hepatocellular neoplasia. Hepatology. 2009;49:658–64 (no applicable level).CrossRef
63.Takayama T, et al. Early hepatocellular carcinoma as an entity with a high rate of surgical cure. Hepatology. 1998;28:1241–6 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
64.Hayashi M, et al. Correlation between the blood supply and grade of malignancy of hepatocellular nodules associated with liver cirrhosis: Evaluation by CT during intraarterial injection of contrast medium. AJR. 1999;172:969–76 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
65.Alaboudy A, et al. Usefulness of combination of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using sonazoid-enhanced ultrasound, gadolinium diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic Acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Oncology. 2011;81:66–72 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
66.Matsui O, et al. Imaging of multi-step hepatocarcinogenesis : imaging, pathophysiologic and molecular correlation. Acta Hepatol Jpn. 2011;52:415–28 (no applicable level).CrossRef
67.Kobayashi K, editor.: Gastrointestinal diseases up to date, consensus and controversies. 1996. p. 22–26 (no applicable level).
68.Tanaka M, et al. Pathomorphological study of Kupffer cells in hepatocellular carcinoma and hyperplastic nodular lesions in the liver. Hepatology. 1996;24:807–12 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
69.Kutami R, et al. Pathomorphologic study on the mechanism of fatty change in small hepatocellular carcinoma of humans. J Hepatol. 2000;33:282–9 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
70.Sugimoto K, et al. Assessment of arterial hypervascularity of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of contrast-enhanced US and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1205–13 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
71.Rhee H, et al. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI findings of early hepatocellular carcinoma as defined by new histologic criteria. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35:393–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
72.Haradome H, et al. Additional value of gadoxetic acid-DTPA-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MR imaging in the diagnosis of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with dynamic triple-phase multidetector CT imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:69–78 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
73.Kogita S, et al. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance images of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with histological grading and portal blood flow. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2405–13 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
74.Arita J, et al. Correlation between contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasound using Sonazoid and histologic grade of resected hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR. 2011;196:1314–21 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
75.Yamashita Y, et al. Cavernous hemangioma of the liver: pathologic correlation with dynamic CT findings. Radiology. 1997;203:121–5 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
76.Kagei K, et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic rate of liver hemangioma by 99mTc-labeled RBC SPECT—Comparison with US, CT, and angiography. Jpn J Nucl Med. 1993;30:171–80 (level 4).
77.Itai Y, et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of small cavernous hemangioma of the liver: advantage of MRI. AJR. 1985;145:1195–9 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
78.Stark DD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of cavernous hemangioma of the liver: tissue-specific characterization. AJR. 1985;145:213–22 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
79.Ros PR, et al. Hemangioma of the liver: heterogeneous appearance on T2-weighted images. AJR. 1987;149:1167–70 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
80.McNicholas MM, et al. T2 relaxation times of hypervascular and non-hypervascular liver lesions: do hypervascular lesions mimic haemangiomas on heavily T2-weighted MR images. Clin Radiol. 1996;51:401–5 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
81.Termanini B, et al. Distingusishing small hepatic hemangiomas from vascular liver metastases in gastrinoma: use of a somatostatin-receptor scintigraphic agent. Radiology. 1997;202:151–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
82.Yan FH, et al. Role and pitfalls of hepatic helical multi-phase CT scanning in differential diagnosis of small hemangioma and small hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 1998;4:343–7 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
83.Brancatelli G, et al. Hemangioma in the cirrhotic liver: diagnosis and natural history. Radiology. 2001;219:69–74 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
84.Yu JS, et al. Hepatic cavernous hemangioma in cirrhotic liver: imaging findings. Korean J Radiol. 2000;1:185–90 (level 4).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
85.Young LK, et al. Hepatic hemangioma: quantitative color power US angiography-facts and fallacies. Radiology. 1998;207:51–7 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
86.Wilson SR, et al. Harmonic hepatic US with microbubble contrast agent: initial experience showing improved characterization of hemangioma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metastasis. Radiology. 2000;215:153–61 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
87.Bartolotta TV, et al. Liver haemangiomas undetermined at grey-scale ultrasound: contrast-enhancement patterns with SonoVue and pulse-inversion US. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:685–93 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
88.Lee JY, et al. Improved sonographic imaging of hepatic hemangioma with contrast-enhanced coded harmonic angiography: comparison with MR imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:287–95 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
89.Kato H, et al. Atypically enhancing hepatic cavernous hemangiomas: high-spatial-resolution gadolinium-enhanced triphasic dynamic gradient-recalled-echo imaging findings. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:2510–5 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
90.de González Berrington. A, Darby S: Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363:345–51 (level 5).CrossRef
91.Doo KW, et al. “Pseudo washout” sign in high-flow hepatic hemangioma on gadoxetic acid contrast-enhanced MRI mimicking hypervascular tumor. AJR. 2009;193:W490–6 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
92.Goshima S, et al. Hepatic hemangioma and metastasis: differentiation with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced 3-T MRI. AJR. 2010;195:941–6 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
93.Motosugi U, et al. Distinguishing hepatic metastasis from hemangioma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:359–65 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
94.Balthazar EJ, et al. Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology. 1990;174:331–6 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
95.Balthazar EJ. Acute pancreatitis: assessment of severity with clinical and CT evaluation. Radiology. 2002;223:603–13 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
96.Bharwani N, et al. Acute pancreatitis: the role of imaging in diagnosis and management. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:164–75 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
97.O’Connor OJ, et al. Imaging of acute pancreatitis. AJR. 2011;197:W221–5 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
98.O’Connor OJ, et al. Imaging of the complications of acute pancreatitis. AJR. 2011;197:W375–81 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
99.Heller SJ, et al. Pleural effusion as a predictor of severity in acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 1997;15:222–5 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
100.Mortele KJ, et al. A modified CT severity index for evaluating acute pancreatitis: improved correlation with patient outcome. AJR. 2004;183:1261–5 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
101.Mujica VR, et al. Acute pancreatitis secondary to pancreatic carcinoma. Study Group Participants. Pancreas. 2000;21:329–32 (level 2).
102.Hashiguchi Y, et al. Surveillance after curative resection for colorectal cancer. J Jpn Surg Soc. 2007;108:125–30 (level 1).
103.Desch CE, et al. Recommended colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1312 (level 5).PubMed
104.Park MJ, et al. Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting tumor clearance of the mesorectal fascia after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology. 2011;260:771–80 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
105.Ramirez JM, et al. Endoluminal ultrasonography in the follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1994;81:692–4 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
106.Löhnert MS, et al. Effectiveness of endoluminal sonography in the identification of occult local rectal cancer recurrences. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:483–91 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
107.Moore HG, et al. A case-controlled study of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of pelvic recurrence in previously irradiated rectal cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:22–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
108.Flanagan FL, et al. Utility of FDG-PET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA elevation in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;227:319–23 (level 4).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
109.Anthony T, et al. Postoperative colorectal cancer surveillance. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:737–49 (level 1).PubMed CrossRef
110.Kim HJ, et al. CT Colonography for combined colonic and extracolonic surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Radiology. 2010;257:697–704 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
111.Hata K, et al. Uterine sarcoma: can it be differentiated from uterine leiomyoma with Doppler ultrasonography? A preliminary report. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9:101–4 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
112.Aviram R, et al. Uterine sarcomas versus leiomyomas: gray-scale and Doppler sonographic findings. J Clin Ultrasound. 2005;33:10–3 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
113.Sahdev A, et al. MR imaging of uterine sarcomas. AJR. 2001;177:1307–11 (level 4).PubMed
114.Cornfeld D, et al. MRI appearance of mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74:241–9 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
115.Tamai K, et al. The utility of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:723–30 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
116.Takeuchi M, et al. Hyperintense uterine myometrial masses on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: differentiation with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33:834–7 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
117.Fujii S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign from malignant uterine endometrial cavity lesions: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:384–9 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
118.Namimoto T. Combined use of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted 3-T MR imaging for differentiating uterine sarcomas from benign leiomyomas. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2756–64 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
119.Tanaka YO, et al. Smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential and leiomyosarcomas of the uterus: MR findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20:998–1007 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
120.Goto A, et al. Usefulness of Gd-DTPA contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI and serum determination of LDH and its isozymes in the differential diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma from degenerated leiomyoma of the uterus. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12:354–6 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
121.Koyama T, et al. MR imaging of endometrial stromal sarcoma: correlation with pathologic findings. AJR. 1999;173:767–72 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
122.Teo SY, et al. Primary malignant mixed Mullerian tumor of the uterus: findings on sonography, CT, and gadolinium enhanced MRI. AJR. 2008;191:278–83 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
123.Ohguri T, et al. MRI findings including gadolinium-enhanced dynamic studies of malignant mesodermal tumors of the uterus: differentiaton from endometrial carcinomas. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2737–42 (level 3).PubMed
124.Bosniak MA. The small (less than or equal to 3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis, and controversies. Radiology. 1991;179:307–17 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
125.Curry NS. Small renal masses (lesions smaller than 3 cm): imaging evaluation and management. AJR. 1995;164:355–62 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
126.Jinzaki M, et al. Evaluation of small (≤3 cm) renal masses with MDCT: benefits of thin overlapping reconstructions. AJR. 2004;183:223–8 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
127.Davenport MS, et al. Diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma with Hounsfield unit thresholds: effect of size of region of interest and nephrographic phase imaging. Radiology. 2011;260:158–65 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
128.Jinzaki M, et al. Double-phase helical CT of small renal parenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:835–42 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
129.Kim JK, et al. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. AJR. 2002;178:1499–506 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
130.Ruppert-Kohlmayr AJ, et al. Differentiation of renal clear cell carcinoma and renal papillary carcinoma using quantitative CT enhancement parameters. AJR. 2004;183:1387–91 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
131.Sheir KZ, et al. Differentiation of renal cell carcinoma subtypes by multislice computerized tomography. J Urol. 2005;174:451–5 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
132.Zhang J, et al. Solid renal cortical tumors: differentiation with CT. Radiology. 2007;144:494–504 (level 2).CrossRef
133.El-Esawy SS, et al. Characterization of solid renal masses using 64-slice Multidetector CT scanner. Scientific World Journal. 2009;12:441–8 (level 3).CrossRef
134.Alshumrani G, et al. Small (≤4 cm) cortical renal tumors: characterization with multidetector CT. Abdom Imaging. 2010;35:488–93 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
135.Shebel HM, et al. Quantitative enhancement washout analysis of solid cortical renal masses using multidetector computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011;35:337–42 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
136.Jinzaki M, et al. Angiomyolipoma: imaging findings in lesions with minimal fat. Radiology. 1997;205:497–502 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
137.Silverman SG, et al. Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. Radiographics. 2007;27:1131–43 (level 5).PubMed CrossRef
138.Herts BR, et al. Enhancement characteristics of papillary renal neoplasms revealed on triphasic helical CT of the kidneys. AJR. 2002;178:367–72 (level 2).PubMed CrossRef
139.Wang JH, et al. Dynamic CT evaluation of tumor vascularity in renal cell carcinoma. AJR. 2006;186:1423–30 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
140.Choudhary S, et al. Renal oncocytoma: CT features cannot reliably distinguish oncocytoma from other renal neoplasms. Clin Radiol. 2009;64:517–22 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
141.Kondo T, et al. Spoke-wheel-like enhancement as an important imaging finding of chromophobe cell renal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging studies. Int J Urol. 2004;11:817–24 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
142.Westerhof JP, et al. MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: is there any value? Radiology. 1998;207:675–81 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
143.Nakahara H, et al. Three-dimensional MR imaging of mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications. Breast Cancer. 2001;8:116–24 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
144.Uematsu T, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103:269–81 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
145.Akita A, et al. The clinical value of bilateral breast MR imaging: is it worth performing on patients showing suspicious microcalcifications on mammography? Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2089–96 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
146.Cilotti A, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med. 2007;112:272–86 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
147.Bazzocchi M, et al. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial. AJR. 2006;186:1723–32 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
148.Dorrius MD, et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem-solving modality in mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions. Cancer Imaging. 2010;10:S54–8 (level 3).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
149.Solomon DH, et al. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have a torn meniscus or ligament of the knee? Value of the physical examination. JAMA. 2001;286:1610–20 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
150.Scholten RJ, et al. The accuracy of physical diagnostic tests for assessing meniscal lesions of the knee: a meta-analysis. J Fam Pract. 2001;50:938–44 (level 3).PubMed
151.Scholten RJ, et al. Accuracy of physical diagnostic tests for assessing ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. J Fam Pract. 2003;52:689–94 (level 3).PubMed
152.Oei EH, et al. MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology. 2003;226:837–48 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
153.Crawford R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus arthroscopy in the diagnosis of knee pathology, concentrating on meniscal lesions and ACL tears: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2007;84:5–23 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
154.Barnett MJ. MR diagnosis of internal derangement of the knee: effect of field strength on efficacy. AJR. 1993;161:115–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
155.Vellet AD, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament tear: prospective evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of middle- and high-field-strength MR imaging at 1.5 T and 0.5 T. Radiology. 1995;197:826–30 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
156.Brooks S, et al. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis in the knee arthroscopy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002;84:265–8 (level 4).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
157.Kocabey Y, et al. The value of clinical examination versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of meniscal tears and anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Arthroscopy. 2004;20:696–700 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
158.Esmaili Jah AA, et al. Accuracy of MRI in comparison with clinical and arthroscopic findings in ligamentous and meniscal injuries of the knee. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005;71:189–96 (level 4).PubMed
159.Ryzewicz M, et al. The diagnosis of meniscus tears: the role of MRI and clinical examination. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:123–33 (level 3).PubMed CrossRef
160.Madhusudhan TR, et al. Clinical examination, MRI and arthroscopy in meniscal and ligamentous knee Injuries: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2008;3:19 (level 4).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
161.Rayan F, et al. Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic correlation in meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Int Orthop. 2009;33:129–32 (level 4).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
162.Ercin E, et al. History, clinical findings, magnetic resonance imaging, and arthroscopic correlation in meniscal lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:851–6 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
163.Munk B, et al. Clinical magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopic findings in knees: a comparative prospective study of meniscus anterior cruciate ligament and cartilage lesions. Arthroscopy. 1998;14:171–5 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
164.Nikolaou VS, et al. MRI efficacy in diagnosing internal lesions of the knee: a retrospective analysis. J Trauma Manag Outcomes. 2008;2:4 (level 4).PubMedCentral PubMed CrossRef
165.Ruwe PA, et al. Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy? Radiology. 1992;183:335–9 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
166.Bui-Mansfield LT, et al. Potential cost saving of MR imaging obtained before arthroscopy of the knee. AJR. 1997;168:913–8 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef
167.Vincken PW, et al. Effectiveness of MR imaging in selection of patients for arthroscopy of the knee. Radiology. 2002;223:739–46 (level 4).PubMed CrossRef - 作者单位：Yasuyuki Yamashita (1)
Sadayuki Murayama (2)
Masahiro Okada (2)
Yoshiyuki Watanabe (3)
Masako Kataoka (4)
Yasushi Kaji (5)
Keiko Imamura (6)
Yasuo Takehara (7)
Hiromitsu Hayashi (8)
Kazuko Ohno (9)
Kazuo Awai (10)
Toshinori Hirai (11)
Kazuyuki Kojima (12)
Shuji Sakai (13)
Naofumi Matsunaga (14)
Takamichi Murakami (15)
Kengo Yoshimitsu (16)
Toshifumi Gabata (17)
Kenji Matsuzaki (18)
Eriko Tohno (19)
Yasuhiro Kawahara (20)
Takeo Nakayama (21)
Shuichi Monzawa (22)
Satoru Takahashi (23)
1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
2. Department of Radiology, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan
3. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
5. Department of Radiology, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi, Japan
6. Department of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
7. Department of Radiology, Hamamatsu University Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan
8. Department of Radiology, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan
9. Department of Radiological Technology, Kyoto College of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan
10. Diagnostic Radiology, Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
11. Departmant of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan
12. Department of Radiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Japan
13. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
14. Department of Radiology, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi, Japan
15. Department of Radiology, Kinki University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
16. Department of Radiology, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Japan
17. Department of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan
18. Department of Radiology, Institute of Health Biosciences, University of Tokushima Graduate School, Tokushima, Japan
19. Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan
20. Department of Radiology, Nagasaki Rousai Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan
21. Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
22. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Shinko Hospital, Kobe, Japan
23. Department of Radiology, Kobe University Hospital, Kobe, Japan - 刊物主题：Imaging / Radiology; Nuclear Medicine; Radiotherapy;
- 出版者：Springer Japan
- ISSN：1867-108X
文摘
Diagnostic imaging is undoubtedly important in modern medicine, and final clinical decisions are often made based on it. Fortunately, Japan has the highest numbers of diagnostic imaging instruments, such as CT and MRI devices, and boasts easy access to them as well as a high level of diagnostic accuracy. In consequence, a very large number of imaging examinations are performed, but diagnostic instruments are installed in so many medical facilities that expert management of these examinations tends to be insufficient. Particularly, in order to avoid risks, clinicians have recently become indifferent to indications of imaging modalities and tend to rely on CT or MRI resulting in increasing the number of imaging examinations in Japan. This is a serious problem from the viewpoints of avoidance of unnecessary exposure and medical economy. Under these circumstances, the Japan Radiological Society and Japanese College of Radiology jointly initiated the preparation of new guidelines for diagnostic imaging. However, the field of diagnostic imaging is extremely wide, and it is impossible to cover all diseases. Therefore, in drafting the guidelines, we selected important diseases and focused on “showing evidence and suggestions in the form of clinical questions (CQs)” concerning clinically encountered questions and “describing routine imaging techniques presently considered to be standards to guarantee the quality of imaging examinations”. In so doing, we adhered to the basic principles of assuming the readers to be “radiologists specializing in diagnostic imaging”, “simultaneously respecting the global standards and attending to the situation in Japan”, and “making the guidelines consistent with those of other scientific societies related to imaging”. As a result, the guidelines became the largest ever, consisting of 152 CQs, nine areas of imaging techniques, and seven reviews, but no other guidelines in the world summarize problems concerning diagnostic imaging in the form of CQs. In this sense, the guidelines are considered to reflect the abilities of diagnostic radiologists in Japan. The contents of the guidelines are essential knowledge for radiologists, but we believe that they are also of use to general clinicians and clinical radiological technicians. While the number and contents of CQs are still insufficient, and while chapters such as those on imaging in children and emergency imaging need to be supplemented, the guidelines will be serially improved through future revisions. Lastly, we would like to extend our sincere thanks to the 153 members of the drafting committee who authored the guidelines, 12 committee chairpersons who coordinated their efforts, six members of the secretariat, and affiliates of related scientific societies who performed external evaluation.