Best cases from the AFIP: Mucinous colloid adenocarcinoma of the urachus
Department of Radiology, Upstate Medical University, 750 E Adams St, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.Radiographics (Impact Factor: 2.6). 07/2001; 21(4):965-9.
- Feuillets de Radiologie 02/2004; 44(1):74-76.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Twenty-five cases of surgically proven urachal carcinomas were retrospectively reviewed. The radiological archives at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology were searched for cases of surgically proven urachal carcinomas that had a computed tomographic (CT) scan as a part of their radiologic evaluation. CT images from all cases were evaluated to determine tumor morphology, presence and localization of calcification, extent of bladder invasion and metastases. Tumor size at presentation averaged 6 cm. Twenty-one of 25 (84%) were mixed cystic solid lesions and 4/25 (16%) were completely solid. Calcifications were present in 18/25 (72%), with 11 peripherally located, 3 central only and 4 both. Bladder wall invasion was present in 23/25 (92%), but was seen as an intraluminal mass in only 13/25 (52%). The bulk of the mass was extravesicular in 22/25 (88%). Metastases were present in 12/25 (48%). Our series supports observations from other smaller series that a midline, calcified, supravesicular mass is highly suspicious, if not pathognomonic, for urachal carcinoma.European Radiology 02/2005; 15(1):79-84. DOI:10.1007/s00330-004-2408-z · 4.01 Impact Factor
Article: Subumbilical parietal cystic images[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We report three cases of women who came to our observation suffering from a feeling of heaviness in the pelvic floor. Ultrasonography showed, in all cases, a cystic formation, medially located under the umbilicus, suggesting the presence of a cyst of the urachus. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, however, thanks to a more definite topographic evaluation, allowed elimination of this diagnosis in two patients with history of previous abdominal surgery. (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.Clinical Imaging 09/2007; 31(5):340-2. DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2007.01.004 · 0.81 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.