| Literature DB >> 30697185 |
Huan Luo1,2,3, Shanshan Xie1, Chao Ma1,4,5,6, Wenqiang Zhang4, Carsten Tschöpe5,6, Xianen Fa4, Jingliang Cheng1, Jing Cao3.
Abstract
Background: The ability to distinguish between a normal thymus, thymic hyperplasia, and thymoma should aid in clinical management and decision making for patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). We sought to determine the accuracy of routine radiological examinations in predicting thymic pathology.Entities:
Keywords: computed tomography; histology; magnetic resonance imaging; myasthenia gravis; radiology; thymoma
Year: 2019 PMID: 30697185 PMCID: PMC6340958 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.01173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Flowchart showing the inclusion of patients in the study. MG, myasthenia gravis.
Patient characteristics according to the groups.
| Age of onset, mean (range) | 38.8 (1-85) | 45.2 (1-75) | 44.1 (1-85) | 27.4 (1-66) |
| Age at thymectomy, mean (range) | 40.0 (4-86) | 47.0 (4-77) | 45.0 (4-86) | 30.0 (4-68) |
| Men | 38 (33.3) | 15 (38.5) | 21 (33.3) | 16 (35.6) |
| Women | 76 (66.7) | 24 (61.5) | 42 (66.7) | 29 (64.4) |
| Positive | 96 (84.2) | 34 (87.2) | 57 (90.5) | 34 (75.6) |
| Negative | 18 (15.8) | 5 (12.8) | 6 (9.5) | 11 (24.4) |
| Class I | 28 (24.6) | 10 (25.6) | 16 (25.4) | 13 (28.9) |
| Class II a | 23 (20.2) | 6 (15.4) | 11 (17.5) | 10 (22.2) |
| Class II b | 51 (44.7) | 18 (46.2) | 29 (46.0) | 18 (40.0) |
| Class III a | 3 (2.6) | 1 (2.6) | 2 (3.2) | 0(0) |
| Class III b | 6 (5.3) | 4 (10.3) | 2 (3.2) | 2 (4.4) |
| Class IV a | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) |
| Class IV b | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) |
| Class V | 3 (2.6) | 0(0) | 3 (4.8) | 2 (4.4) |
| Normal | 55 (48.2) | 24 (61.5) | 29 (46.0) | 23 (51.1) |
| Hyperplasia | 34 (29.8) | 7 (17.9) | 15 (23.8) | 19 (42.2) |
| Thymoma | 25 (21.9) | 8 (20.5) | 19 (30.2) | 3 (6.7) |
| Normal | 90.9% (80.1–97.0%) | 91.7% (73.0–99.0%) | 93.1% (77.2–99.2%) | 87.0% (66.4–97.2%) |
| Hyperplasia | 44.1% (27.2–62.1%) | 14.3% (0.4–57.9%) | 26.7% (7.8–55.1%) | 68.4% (43.5–87.4%) |
| Thymoma | 100.0% (86.3–100.0%) | 100.0% (63.1–100.0%) | 100.0% (82.4–100.0%) | 100.0% (29.2–100.0%) |
| Normal | 78.0% (65.3–87.7%) | 73.3% (44.9–92.2%) | 79.4% (62.1–91.3%) | 77.3% (54.6–92.2%) |
| Hyperplasia | 95.0% (87.7–98.6%) | 96.9% (83.8–99.9%) | 97.9% (88.9–99.95%) | 88.5% (69.9–97.6%) |
| Thymoma | 92.1% (84.5–96.8%) | 90.3% (74.3–98.0%) | 88.6% (75.4–96.2%) | 97.6% (87.4–99.9%) |
| Normal | 84.2% (76.2–90.4%) | 84.6% (69.5–94.1%) | 85.7% (74.6–93.3%) | 82.2% (68.0–92.0%) |
| Hyperplasia | 79.8% (71.3–86.8%) | 82.1% (66.5–92.5%) | 81.0% (69.1–89.8%) | 80.0% (65.4–90.4%) |
| Thymoma | 93.9% (87.8–97.5%) | 92.3% (79.1–98.4%) | 92.1% (82.4–97.4%) | 97.8% (88.2–99.9%) |
Figure 2The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each group for the three histological types. Sensitivity: the four methods were highly sensitive to normal histological types, but there was no significant difference. The MRI group had the highest sensitivity (68.4, 95% CI: 43.5–87.4%) in the group of patients with histologically confirmed hyperplasia, and the differences were significant compared with those of the CT group (14.3, 95% CI: 0.4–57.9%) and the contrast CT group (26.7, 95% CI: 7.8–55.1%). There was no significant difference among the CT group, CT group and contrast CT group. All four groups showed 100% sensitivity. For patients with histologically confirmed thymoma, no significant differences were found. Specificity: for hyperplasia patients, the specificity of contrast CT (97.9, 95% CI: 88.9–99.95%) was better than that of MRI (88.5, 95% CI: 69.9–97.6%), and the difference between the two groups was significant. There were no significant differences between the other groups. Accuracy: the four groups showed very similar accuracy measurements between each of the three histological types, and there were no significant differences between the groups.( *Two groups were significantly different).