Category: Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 162 – SOLVED

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 11 Comments

Dear Friends,

taking advantage of Dr Pepe’s absence I am showing today an unproven case (always wanted to do it!). All relevant images are shown, without comment, looking forward to hear your opinions.
I will share my impressions with you next Friday. Hope we will coincide. We have to wait together until we get the final diagnosis (or not).

Chest radiographs belong to a 66-year-old man with abdominal pain and a history of diverticulitis. The round opacity at the left base led to a review of previous examinations, dating back to 2007.

Abdominal CT for diverticulitis in 2007 and 2008 show a cystic lesion in the left costophrenic sinus

The patient had recurrent episodes of diverticulitis and/or abdominal pain. I am offering several axial CTs in different years to document the evolution of the lesion

Occasionally the chest was also examined. Showing three samples of sagittal CTs with pulmonary window over a ten years’ period.

The last abdominal CT was taken on August 30, 2020. I have selected the most relevant axial, coronal and sagittal images.

Have you reached a conclusion after reviewing all the images?

Click here to see the answer

The case starts in 2019 with chest radiographs of a 66-year-old man with abdominal pain and previous history of diverticulitis. A rounded opacity is seen the left lung base (A-B, arrows). This finding led to a review of previous examinations, dating back to 2007.

Abdominal CTs for diverticulitis in 2007 and 2008 show a cystic lesion in the left costophrenic sinus(C-D, circles). The lesion has grown slightly in one year.

Since 2007 the patient had recurrent episodes of diverticulitis and/or abdominal pain. Several abdominal CTs in different years document the evolution of the lesion: the purely cystic lesion in 2008 (E, arrow) has grown in 2013 and fine septa are seen within it (F, circle).
CT in 2015 shows that the septa are thicker and enhance after contrast injection (G, circle). An unenhanced CT in 2018 demonstrates a smaller lesion with a thick peripheral rim of solid tissue (H, arrows).

Sometimes the chest was included in the CT examination. Three samples of sagittal CTs with pulmonary window over a ten years’ period show that the lesion lies within the left major fissure (A-C, arrows). It looks like a pendulum held by the fissure and has an irregular contour in the last image in 2018.

A final unenhanced abdominal CT taken on August 2020 shows that the appearance of the lesion has not changed significantly in the last two years. In the meantime a small punctate calcification has appeared (L and O, arrows).

Conclusion after review of the images:

1- Slow-growing mass over a period of ten years.

2- The initial cystic mass has developed thick septa and thick peripheral rim.

3- Located within the left major fissure.

4- Punctate calcification.

Given all these finding, my best option is a fibrous pleural tumor of the left pleural fissure which is undergoing malignant transformation.

An alternative diagnosis could be a mucinous pleural tumor if such entity exists.
In my opinion, hydatid cyst is very unlikely. It has been practically eradicated from Spain and I have never seen one within a fissure.

The patient is now in the hands of a competent pneumologist. Hope we will get a definitive diagnosis soon. As soon as I get it, I will post it in the blog ( and, if it happens to be a hydatid cyst, I will do penance in a nunnery).

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 161 – Meet the examiner

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 2 Comments

Dear Friends,

This week’s case follows the pattern of a “Meet the Examiner” presentation, with questions and answers similar to a real examination. Take your time before scrolling down for the answer.

The images belong to a 60-year-old man with moderate cough and dyspnea

What would you recommend?

1. Compare with previous films
2. Chest CT
3. PET-CT
4. None of the above

Click here to see the answer

Findings: PA radiograph shows large bullae in both upper lobes. There is a nodule in the RUL projected over one bulla (A, arrow). Two small calcified granulomas are visible in the periphery of the LUL (A, circle). PA film taken five years earlier (B) does not show any nodule in the RUL. The granulomas in the LUL are unchanged.

Report of the chest : bullous emphysema with a nodule not visible in 2014. Given the relationship between bullous disease and carcinoma, it is imperative to do a chest CT.

Enhanced CT was done the next day. What would you suggest?

1. Antibiotic treatment and CXR in one month
2. PET-CT
3. Antibiotic treatment and CT in one month
4. None of the above

Click here to see the answer

Findings: aside form large bullae in both upper lobes, an irregular nodule is evident in the RUL (A-B, arrows). In my opinion, given the appearance of the nodule I would suspect malignancy and request a PET-CT. However CT was reported as: Pseudonodular opacity in RUL that could be related to an infectious/inflammatory process. A neoplasm cannot be excluded. Recommend control after treatment

Click here to see more images

A chest radiograph was taken one month later.
What would you do?

1. PET-CT
2. CXR in three months
3. CT in three months
4. Control in one year

Click here to see more images

The chest radiograph one month later was reported as unchanged and no further suggestions were made by the radiologist. The clinician took no further action.

The patient came back ten months later, and a new radiograph showed an obvious increase in size of the nodule (B, arrow) when compared to the initial film (A, arrow)

Click here to see more images

Enhanced CT confirms the increase in size of the nodule (A-B, arrows). Surgery discovered a carcinoma in the wall of a bulla.

Final diagnosis: adenocarcinoma of the lung associated to bullous disease.

Lung carcinoma seems to occur more often in bullous disease, although there is not enough evidence compiled at the present time. Despite the lack of evidence, knowing
this association may prevent misdiagnosis.
A lesser known fact is that the cystic space may disappear after the carcinoma develops, as occurred in a second case (see below). Spontaneous regression of a bulla may be due to non-malignant causes, but carcinoma should be excluded with CT because it may take years for the lesion to be visible in the chest radiograph.

I am showing this case because the opinion given in the chest radiograph was unequivocal, whereas the CT report was vapid, giving the impression that the nodule was infectious, and that malignancy was less likely. The follow-up radiograph was disregarded by the radiologist and clinician and this caused a delay in diagnosis of almost one year.

To complete the information, I am showing a second case of carcinoma developing in the wall of a cystic space

Images of the second case were obtained during routine CT screening in a 72-year-old man, heavy smoker.
Apical axial CT image shows a small nodule in the LUL (A, arrow), with increased uptake on PET-CT (C, arrow). There is a cystic airspace in the LLL (B, arrow) with no PET-CT uptake, interpreted as a non-specific cystic airspace lesion.

At surgery a carcinoma of the LUL was found.

It was decided to continue with yearly follow-up studies. The cystic air space (A, arrow) increased in size in 2008 but still had a thin wall (B, arrow). In 2009 it has decreased slightly in size and the wall is thicker than the previous year (C, arrow). A new PET-CT shows increased uptake in the posterior wall (D, arrow).

Malignancy was suspected. The patient refused further surgery or percutaneous biopsy and it was decided to do a follow up study three months later.
Axial CT shows that the cystic airspace has disappeared and in its place, a solid mass has developed (A and B, arrows) with increased overall uptake on PET-CT (C, arrow). At surgery, an adenocarcinoma was found.

Final diagnosis: adenocarcinoma arising in the wall of a cystic airspace, which disappeared as the tumour progressed.


Follow Dr. Pepe’s advice:

1. Bullous emphysema and isolated cystic spaces may be associated with an increased incidence of carcinomas

2. A poorly worded report may cause an unnecessary delay in diagnosis

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 160 – With a webinar! – SOLVED

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 5 Comments

Dear friends, I am starting a new webinar series entitled “Things that we already know, but are important to remember”. The objective is to refresh basic concepts that often are forgotten.

This week’s webinar title is “Who is afraid of the bad, big lateral chest”. The webinar will take place on Wednesday, September 30 at 12:00 CEST. You can register here.

The initial case is a PA chest radiograph of a 61-year-old man with hemoptysis.

Do you see any abnormality?
1. Yes
2. No
3. I want a lateral chest

Register for the webinar and lear more about this case and others!

Click here to see the answer

Findings: PA radiograph (A) does not show any significant findings. The lateral view shows a posterior pulmonary nodule with irregular contour (B, arrow). A typical donut sign is visible (B, circle), indicative of enlarged subcarinal lymph nodes.

Enhanced axial CT and PET-CT show confirm the pulmonary nodule (C-D, arrows) and the subcarinal lymphadenopathies (C-D, red arrows).

Final diagnosis:

Carcinoma hidden in the PA view behind the right hilum with metastases to subcarinal lymph nodes.
 
Congratulations to drpeca who was the first to want a lateral view.
 
Teaching point: remember that about 26% of the lung is hidden in the PA view. A lateral chest radiograph is indispensable to study the chest.

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 159 – SOLVED

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 15 Comments

Dear Friends,

Today I am presenting another “Art of interpretation” case. As I have mentioned before, interpreting a chest radiograph may be a difficult task and analyzing the diagnostic steps helps to a correct evaluation of the findings.

Radiographs belong to a 57-year-old woman with cough and pain in the chest.

Diagnosis:
1. Pulmonary mass
2. Mediastinal mass
3. Pleural mass
4. Any of the above

What do you see? Come back on Friday to see the answer!

Click here to see the images


Click here to see the answer

PA radiograph shows an ill-defined right perihilar and upper lung opacity( A, asterisk). The right hemidiaphragm is elevated. There is an obvious elevation of the right hilum. (A, red arrow).

Lateral view shows a well-defined retro-sternal triangular opacity (B, white arrows) with a rounded convex appearance at the level of the hilum (B, red arrow).

Analysis of relevant findings:

PA chest

1. Elevation of right hilum
2. Hazy opacity in right upper lung
3. Elevated right hemidiaphragm

Lateral chest

1. Well-defined retro-sternal triangular opacity with a bulge in the middle

The clue to the diagnosis lies in discovering the elevation of the right hilum in the PA view. Neither a mediastinal nor a pleural mass should displace the hilum upwards. Therefore, the correct answer is: 1. Pulmonary mass.

The elevated right hilum suggests loss of volume of RUL, supported by the haziness of upper lung and elevation of the hemidiaphragm.

The lateral view provides significant information: the retro-sternal triangular opacity is highly suspicious of RUL collapse, limited superiorly by the displaced major fissure and inferiorly by the minor fissure. The central bulge suggests a mass as the cause of the collapse.

ELEVATED RIGHT HILUM + SIGNS OF RUL COLLAPSE (LATERAL VIEW) + HILAR MASS IN LATERAL VIEW = CARCINOMA WITH ATYPICAL RUL COLLAPSE

Enhanced coronal CT confirms the central mass (A, arrow) and the collapsed RUL (A, red arrow). Sagittal view shows the displaced major fissure (B, arrow). Axial view demonstrates the obstructed RUL bronchus (C, arrow)

Final diagnosis: Carcinoma of RUL bronchus with atypical collapse of RUL

Recognizing lobar collapses in the chest radiograph is important because most of them are caused by endobronchial carcinoma.
RUL collapse has a distinctive appearance which is easily identified in the PA radiograph (see Diploma 58). Occasionally the presentation is atypical and may be unrecognized, causing an unnecessary delay in the diagnosis. In these cases it is important to know the main signs that will suggest the correct diagnosis (see Diploma 141).
Elevation of the right hilum, as in the present case, is practically a constant sign in RUL collapse. Detecting a high hilum is an important clue to suspect this diagnosis.

To emphasize the importance of an elevated hilum as a sign of atypical RUL collapse, I am showing a second case. Patient is a 77 y.o. man with right shoulder pain.

PA radiograph shows an apparent air-filled cavity in the right upper lung. The clue to the diagnosis lies in recognizing the elevation of the right hilum (A, arrow), pointing to a RUL collapse.
Lateral view confirms the suspicion of RUL collapse confined between the elevated minor fissure (B, arrow) and the anteriorly displaced major fissure (B, red arrow).

Comparison with a previous film confirms the typical findings of aerated RUL collapse, with elevation of the minor fissure (C, arrow) and the right hilum (C, red arrow). The appearance of the current film is due to an apical loculated pneumothorax (D, asterisk) which has displaced medially the outer wall of the RUL lobe.

Previous CT taken three years earlier confirms collapse of RUL lobe with open bronchus (E, arrow), bronchiectasis in the lateral view and marked displacement of the fissures (F, arrows). Note the increased apical fat (E, asterisk) suggestive of a chronic process.

Final diagnosis: Chronic inflammatory collapse of RUL with loculated apical pneumothorax


Follow Dr. Pepe’s advice:

1. Detecting an elevated right hilum is an excellent clue to suspect an atypical presentation of RUL collapse

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 158 – SOLVED

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 7 Comments

Dear Friends,

this is the last case of the first semester. Will meet again in September.
Wish all of you a very happy summer vacation!

This is a new “art of interpretation” case. Radiographs belong to a 40-year-old woman with mild cough.

What do you see?

Diagnosis:

1. Chronic TB changes
2. AV malformation
3. Bronchial atresia
4. Any of the above

Click here to see the answer

To refresh your memory, remember that interpreting a chest radiograph involves three basic steps:

1. Gather information. Examine the radiographs carefully and collect all the pertinent information. Remember that overlooking visible findings is the main cause of errors.

2. Analyze the findings. Once collected, the findings should be properly evaluated, and an opinion should be offered.

3. Decide on the next step to reach the diagnosis.

Step 1. Information:

In this patient the lateral view is unremarkable.
All relevant findings are seen in the PA radiograph:

1. Tubular branching opacities in the left upper lung (A, red arrows)
2. Increased lucency of left upper lung (A, circle)
3. Negative finding: the left hilum is in its normal position.

Step 2. Analysis of the findings:

1. Branching tubular opacities have a limited differential diagnosis: either they are pulmonary vessels or mucous-filled dilated bronchi.

2. Hyperlucent lung is a reliable sign of lung disease when complemented with an expiration film to demonstrate air-trapping.

3. The normal position of the left hilum is a negative finding that excludes a fibrotic process in the LUL (I.e. chronic TB), which should cause upper retraction of the hilum.

The combination of a lucent lung lesion with branching tubular opacities points towards an obstructive process of a segmental bronchus with mucous impaction (Obstruction of a lobar bronchus would cause lobar collapse instead of increased lucency).

TUBULAR BRANCHING OPACITIES + INCREASED LUNG LUCENCY = SEGMENTAL BRONCHIAL OBSTRUCTION

Step 3. Decide on the next step

Once segmental bronchial obstruction is suspected in the chest radiograph, the best procedure to confirm it is an enhanced chest CT with expiratory views. In this case it shows attenuated upper lobe vessels (B, arrows) and obvious mucous impactions (B-C, red arrows).
Axial CT with lung window confirms the increased lucency of the apical-posterior segment of the RUL (D, circle)

Inspiration/expiration axial CT views (E-F) confirm segmental air trapping on the left.

Bronchoscopy did not show any inflammatory or tumoral changes in the LUL bronchus. The orifice of the apical-posterior segment was missing.

Final diagnosis: bronchial atresia of apical-posterior segment of LUL

In my experience, bronchial atresia is the most common congenital lung malformation seen in adults. Congenital bronchial atresia results from proximal interruption of a segmental bronchus, which causes overinflation of the affected segment and secondary mucus impaction. Chest radiography shows a focal hyperlucent area with internal mucus impaction. CT depicts these findings to better advantage. Inspiration and expiration views help to confirm air-trapping. In case of doubt, bronchoscopy excludes other causes of bronchial obstruction.

Congenital bronchial atresia may present different appearances, as shown in the following case of one of our X-ray technicians.

30-year-old female, asymptomatic. PA chest radiograph (A) shows hyperlucent left lung with discrete dextroposition of the heart. Expiration film (B) shows air-trapping on the left with deviation of the mediastinum towards the right. Note a thick tubular shadow in the left lower lung (A-B, red arrows), compatible with bronchial impaction. The findings are suggestive of congenital bronchial atresia

Axial and coronal enhanced CT show increased lucency of the posterior segments of LLL with a central mucous impaction (C-D, red arrows)

Decreased vascularity of LLL and central mucous impaction (E-F, red arrows) are better demonstrated in the MIP reconstruction.

Coronal view eleven years later show that air is now present within the dilated bronchus, confirming the diagnosis (G-H, circles) .


Dr. Pepe’s teaching point:

Hyperlucent lung with mucous impaction are the hallmark of congenital bronchial atresia.

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 157 – SOLVED

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 5 Comments

Dear Friends,

The leading case of this week’s Diploma has been provided by my good friend Jordi Andreu. Radiographs belong to an asymptomatic 48-year-old woman.

Diagnosis:

1. Neurogenic tumor
2. Pulmonary hamartoma
3. Pleural fibrous tumor
4. None of the above

What do you think? Come back on Friday to see the answer!

Click here to see the answer

Findings: PA chest radiograph shows a rounded opacity in the left apex (A, arrow). All diagnosis are possible, as the pulmonary apex is a narrow space and it is very difficult to determine the origin of a mass. The clue lies in the nodular opacities in the neck (A, circle) which raise the possibility of superimposed hair braid.
Unenhanced coronal CT (B) does not show any mass, confirming that the finding is artifactual.

Final diagnosis: superimposed hair braid simulating pulmonary disease

The purpose of this presentation is to discuss elements in or about the soft tissues of the chest wall that may simulate lung disease. Those related to the thoracic skeleton were shown in Diploma case # 57.
This Diploma complements the non-significant findings described in webinar eight.

I have classified them into three groups, the first one related to the soft tissues of the chest wall while the other two are external to the body:

1. Nipples and skin lesions
2. Hair and/or hair implements
3. Garments

Nipple Shadows

Nipple shadows are seen in 3% to 10% of PA chest radiographs. In about 10% of these patients, the identification may raise doubts. Comparison with previous films will confirm the stability of the nodules (Fig. 1). In case of doubt, nipple markers should be placed. Routine use of nipple markers has been proposed in oncologic patients.

Fig. 1. 58-year-old man with typical bilateral nipple shadows (A, arrows), unchanged in comparison with a previous film (B, arrows). Nipples are well seen on axial CT in the same patient (C, arrows). Nowadays, patients may come with their own nipple markers! (D).

Unilateral enlarged nipple shadows are suspicious findings. Visual inspection should be done to confirm that the nipple is indeed enlarged (Fig. 2). Occasionally, a true lung nodule may simulate a nipple shadow, even with nipple markers. In such cases, CT will correct our error (Figs. 3-4)

Fig 2. 61-year-old woman with left pleuritic chest pain. PA chest film shows a small amount of left pleural fluid (A, white arrow) and a nodule at the right costophrenic angle (A, red arrow). Visual inspection showed a large right nipple as the cause of the false nodule. Two weeks later, the pleural effusion has disappeared, and the nipple shadow is no longer seen (B).

Fig. 3. 54-year-old man with a renal tumor. PA film shows a nodule in the LLL (A, arrow) that simulates a nipple, even with a nipple marker (B, arrow). Axial CT shows a metastatic nodule in the LLL and a larger one in the RLL, not seen in the PA chest radiograph (insert, arrows).

Skin lesions

Skin lesions may also cause false lung nodules. Visual inspection of the chest will demonstrate them and confirm the diagnosis (Fig. 5). If there is any doubt, a marker can be used.

Fig. 5. Chest wart simulating a lung nodule in the PA film (A, arrow). Lateral film shows the wart in the skin of the anterior chest wall (B, arrow). The wart is higher in this view because the upheld arms elevate it.

Occasionally, a discrepancy in density between both breasts, usually related to previous surgery, may simulate pulmonary pathology (Fig 6).


Fig 6. 65-year-old woman with syncope. PA radiograph shows a rounded opacity in the right lung (A, arrow), suspected to be a pulmonary infiltrate. Axial CT (B) show normal lungs. The opacity is due to a superimposed right breast prosthesis (B-C, arrows).

Hair

In my experience, hair is a common cause of opacities in the lung apices (Fig 7).
Strands of loose hair may project over the upper lung, simulating linear fibrotic infiltrates (Fig 8). Rubber bands at the end of braids may be confused with pulmonary nodules (Fig. 9). A long braid may fool us and consider it intrapulmonary disease (Fig 10).

In most cases, the clue to the diagnosis lies in recognizing that the abnormality extends to the neck.

Fig. 7. Braid simulating an apical pulmonary nodule (A-B, arrows). The rubber band (A-B, red arrows) suggests the correct diagnosis

Fig. 8. Loose hair simulating a linear infiltrate or fibrosis in the right apex (A, white arrow). Note the same appearance in the lower neck (A, red arrow). The apex looks normal after the hair is lifted (B). The opaque rounded opacity that looks like a hair clasp (A-B yellow arrow) is a cervical disk prosthesis.

Fig 9. Two patients with rubber bands at the end of a braid simulating pulmonary nodules (A-B, arrows). In both, the braids are visible in the neck (A-B, red arrows). Despite that, patient B was referred for a CT examination to evaluate a left lung nodule.

Fig. 10. 25-year-old man with braided hair simulating a RUL infiltrate (A, arrow). The opacity extends to the neck, giving away the diagnosis (A, red arrow). After raising the braid, the chest looks normal (B). Remember that men also wear their hair long nowadays.

Clothing artifacts

Clothing artifacts occur when the technician does not ask patients to remove garments that have logos or images on them. This usually happens with women, out of respect for modesty (Figs. 11 and 12).

Fig. 11. 27-year-old woman with multiple miliary nodules in both lungs (A, circles). The opacities result from a jeweled panther on the shirt she was wearing (B).

Fig 12. 45-year-old woman with previous breast carcinoma. PA radiograph shows small nodules in lower lungs (A, circles). Lateral view proves that the nodules are in a blouse (B, arrow)

Other types of body artifacts may cause dubious opacities in the chest radiograph (Figs 13 and 14)

Fig 13. 29-year-old man with a barely visible non-displaced fracture of the left clavicle (A, arrow), well demonstrated in the 3-D CT reconstruction (B). Components of the support brace for the fracture simulate enlarged upper lobe vessels (A, red arrows).

To end the presentation, in the last two months we have been acquainted with a new artifact: the wire in the face masks (Fig 14)

Fig 14. Routine chest radiograph during the Covid-19 scare. Notice the wire in the face mask (A-B, arrows)


Follow Dr. Pepe’s advice:

1. Unilateral nipple shadows may generate diagnostic problems.
2. If a hair artifact is suspected, look at the soft tissues of the neck.
3. Garments may create weird lung shadows.

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 156

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 6 Comments

Dear Friends,

In the aftermath of the Covid-19 scare, I have elected to show a new  “Meet the Examiner” presentation, with questions and answers similar to a real examination. You will get the final answer at the end of the presentation.

Take your time before seeking the answer.

This case starts with PA and lateral chest radiographs of a 63-year-old man with acute chest pain. Would you suspect pulmonary embolism?

1.Yes
2.No
3.Need a CT

Click here to see the answer

Findings: the most significant finding is a broad right descending pulmonary artery (A, arrow) with an abrupt cut-off (A, red arrow), a sign of embolus in the artery (Palla sign). Oligemia of the right lung is also visible (Westermark sign). Both signs are suggestive of pulmonary embolism, to be confirmed with enhanced CT.
An enlarged azygos vein is also seen (A, yellow arrow), as well as a bump in the para-aortic line (A, blue arrow)

Click here to see more images

Enhanced CT confirms multiple pulmonary emboli (C, arrows) as well as a large embolus in the right descending pulmonary artery responsible for the Palla sign (D, red arrow)

Caudal slices show a non-enhancing opacity in the lower mediastinum. What would be the most likely diagnosis?

1- Lymphangioma
2- Varices
3- Neurofibromatosis
4- Any of the above

Click here to see the answer

Findings: the serpiginous appearance of the opacity (E-F, red arrows) is compatible with all three diagnosis. Mediastinal varices are the most likely diagnosis because they are not unusual, and the top of the spleen appears to be enlarged (F, asterisk).
The varices are not opacified because the images were taken during the arterial phase.

Late images taken during the venous phase show enhancement of the varices (G, arrow). Coronal reconstruction confirms the splenomegaly and a whorl of varices (H, arrow) responsible for the bump of the para-aortic line in the PA radiograph. The varices (V) drain into an enlarged azygos vein (I, arrow). The increased flow explains the prominent azygos in the PA chest film.
Review of the clinical history discovered that the patient had cirrhosis of the liver.

Final diagnosis: mediastinal varices in a patient with liver cirrhosis and pulmonary embolism

Paraesophageal varices are not uncommon and are secondary to portal hypertension in patients with hepatic cirrhosis. When enlarged, they are visible as a lower middle mediastinal mass in about 8% of chest radiographs of cirrhotic patients.
They may be misdiagnosed in CT studies because they don´t enhance in the arterial phase, as happened in the case presented and in a second case shown below.

Click here to see the second case

58-year-old man with liver cirrhosis. PA radiograph shows widening of lower mediastinal lines, which are slightly undulated (A, arrows). There is increased opacity of the left upper quadrant of the abdomen and the lateral wall of the stomach is indented, suggesting splenomegaly. On the lateral view there is increased opacity of the middle lower mediastinum, with a suggestion of tubular structures (B, circle).

Enhanced axial CT (arterial phase) shows a non-enhancing mass in the middle mediastinum that looks like a cyst (C, arrows). Venous phase demonstrates multiple enhanced veins within the mass (D, arrows). The cirrhotic liver and the enlarged spleen are visible in the coronal CT (E) .


Dr. Pepe’s teaching points:

Remember that the mediastinum is composed mainly of vascular structures. When a mediastinal abnormality is present, always rule out a vascular origin (arterial or venous).

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 155 – SOLVED!

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 8 Comments

Dear Friends,

Today I am presenting the leading case of a new webinar entitled: “Sherlock Holmes and the curious finding in the chest radiograph”.

AP radiograph belongs to a newborn with respiratory distress.

Diagnosis:

1. Diaphragmatic hernia
2. Lung tumor
3. Pneumonia
4. None of the above

What do you see? Come back on Wednesday to see the answer and the webinar!

Click here to see the answer

Findings: at a first glance, the predominant abnormality is a large bump in the left hemidiaphragm (A, arrow), suggestive of localized eventration or hernia. However, there is and additional important finding: both humeri are not visible (A, circles).
This baby was born with a congenital absence of the arms (amelia).

I am showing this case to stress the importance of discovering so-called negative findings. Our training emphasizes the discovery of positive findings and forgets teaching us to detect structures that are absent, as this case proves.
 
My apologies for tricking you, but I was trying to prove my point. You can get more information about negative findings in today´s webinar.

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 154 – All you need to know to interpret a chest radiograph – Eighth Session – SOLVED

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 6 Comments

Dear Friends,

Showing today the leading case of webinar eight. Radiographs belong to 27-year-old with seminoma and pain in the anterior chest wall. What is your opinion about the  clavicular lesion?

1. Metastasis
2. Osteomyelitis
3. Benign bone lesion
4. Any of the above

Check out the last webinar form the series explaining in detail this case on our youtube channel and and catch up on previous ones on the EBR YouTube channel!

Click here to see the answer

Findings: the chest radiograph shows a lytic lesion in the proximal right clavicle (A-B, circles). It has a sclerotic border (A-B, red arrows), indicating a slow-growing process. This finding excludes options 1 and 2 and leaves option 3. Benign bone lesion as the correct diagnosis.

This lytic lesion correspond to a normal variant, called the rhomboid fossa. It represents the insertion site of the costoclavicular ligament( yellow), which extends from first rib (red) to the proximal clavicle (blue).
Is a normal variant and should not to be mistaken for an osteolytic lesion.

It occurs in 30% of males and 5% of females. It is more common in the young and becomes less visible with age.

Final diagnosis: rhomboid fossa of right clavicle

Congratulations to Faelivrin, who made the correct diagnosis

Teaching point: it is important to know the most common normal variants of the chest, to avoid confusing them with pathology.

Dr. Pepe’s Diploma Casebook 153 – All you need to know to interpret a chest radiograph – Seventh Session

~ Dr. Pepe ~ 7 Comments

Dear Friends,

Today I am presenting the leading images of the seventh webinar. They belong to a 66-year-old man with vague chest complaints. Chest was read as normal, but there is a visible abnormality, difficult to see.
Can you see it?

Remember, you can see the previous sessions of the webinar in our youtube channel. We will published the answer to this question (and the webinar) on Friday.

Click here to see the answer

Findings: PA radiograph (A) is unremarkable. In the lateral view there is a nodule projected over the mid-thoracic spine (B, arrow). The nodule was overlooked, and the examination was read as normal.

One year later the nodule has increased in size (C, arrow) and has become visible behind the heart in the PA view (D, arrow). It was diagnosed as adenocarcinoma and liver metastases were found.

Two years later, CT and PET-CT show marked progression of the liver metastases.

Final diagnosis: lung adenocarcinoma missed in the first chest radiographs, with widespread metastases two years later
 
Congratulations to Spat, who discovered the initial nodule.
 
Teaching point: remember to look at the dorsal spine in the lateral view. By doing so, you may discover early disease, with great benefit for the patient.