@entity2869 : MR imaging distinction from XXXX in ano.

@entity1 @entity295 @entity2869 @entity292 @entity2419
PURPOSE: To describe magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features in @entity1 with proved @entity2869 and to compare these features with those in a matched group of @entity1 with proved @entity292 in ano to determine the accuracy with which MR imaging can be used to distinguish between the two diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven @entity1 with @entity2869 underwent MR imaging with a body coil. The site and morphology of @entity295 were noted, with particular reference to natal @entity2419 and @entity295 , including intersphincteric anal canal @entity295 and any enteric communication. Comparison was made with 14 age- and sex-matched @entity1 with @entity292 in ano. Categoric frequencies were compared to calculate differences between the groups and sensitivities, specificities, and predictive values. RESULTS: All @entity1 with @entity2869 had natal @entity2419 , but five (71%) had @entity295 at deep-seated sites more characteristic of @entity292 in ano. Eight @entity1 with @entity292 in ano (57%) had natal @entity2419 that was thought characteristic of @entity2869 . No @entity1 with @entity2869 had @entity295 or an enteric communication, in contrast to all @entity1 with @entity292 in ano having both (P <.001). Natal @entity2419 reached the subcutaneous tissues overlying the coccyx and sacrum in only one @entity1 with @entity292 (7%), in contrast to six (86%) with @entity2869 (P <.001). MR imaging had a sensitivity of 86% (six of seven), specificity of 100% (14 of 14), positive predictive value of 100% (six of six), and negative predictive value of 93% (14 of 15) for diagnosis of @entity2869 . CONCLUSION: MR imaging features of @entity295 , characteristic of @entity292 in ano, are also found in @entity1 with @entity2869 , but the absence of @entity295 or enteric opening allows reliable MR imaging distinction between the two.
