Reply to “Comments on “Magnetic resonance imaging features of uterine sarcoma and mimickers”
- 118 Downloads
We thank Dr Ozturk and colleagues for their interest in our article and their interesting comments . Their comments raise several issues. In general, it is commonly admitted that the differentiation between uterine leiomyosarcoma and uterine leiomyoma is a challenge only for degenerated leiomyomas and/or leiomyomas with an atypical presentation. For typical leiomyomas, which are fortunately the most frequent ones, such differentiation is not a matter of concern because of straightforward imaging features that make the diagnosis self-evident. In our paper, “benign leiomyomas” was used with the intent to mean “degenerated leiomyomas” as it could be assumed with the use of Goto et al. study as a corresponding reference . If readers go through this reference they will see that Goto et al. study is restricted to “degenerated benign leiomyoma”. The second issue relates to semantics. We used “the majority” with the intent to mean more than 50%. Indeed, in Goto et al. study, positive lesion enhancement 60 seconds after intravenous administration of a gadolinium chelate was absent in 28/32 benign leiomyomas (87.5%) and present in 10/10 leiomyosarcomas (100%), suggesting high degrees of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma vs. benign leiomyoma . It is thus clear that enhancement is absent in a large majority (i.e., 87.5%) of degenerated benign leiomyomas.
We appreciate the interest raised by our article and hope our explanation helps clarify some unclear portions. We thank Dr Ozturk and colleagues to remind us and the radiological community that scientific writing must use very precise wording for a clear, intended message .
- 1.Ozturk K, Atalay MA, Savci G (2018) Comment on “Magnetic resonance imaging features of uterine sarcoma and mimickers”. Abdom Imaging 2018Google Scholar