BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are the most important imaging techniques in the diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma and disease staging; they are also very useful in monitoring and follow-up of treatment efficacy. The problems with imaging diagnostics arise in certain cases of pancreatic focal lesions - for example in the differentiation of focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. Our objectives were the evaluation of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging reliability and determination of the importance of tumor antigen CA 19-9 in the diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS: Our investigation included patients with pancreatic focal mass suspected of malignancy. All patients were examined by ultrasonography, MR, and ultrasound-guided needle biopsy. Cytopathologic examination of biopsied samples was used to diagnose the disease. Oncomarker levels CA 19-9 were assayed in all patients. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography examination made possible the correct diagnosis of carcinoma in case of 17 patients; in three patients with focal chronic pancreatitis the diagnosis was false positive. No case of false-negative diagnosis was found. The tumor antigen CA 19-9 in serum was determined and it was clearly positive (above 45U/ml) in all patients (17) with pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Imaging techniques gave good results in the evaluation of pancreatic pathology. However, when using imaging techniques differential diagnosis between focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma seems to be major problem. Correlation of imaging technique and determination of tumor antigen CA 19-9 has an important role in the diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma. Imaging techniques and identification of tumor antigen CA 19-9 are complementary methods in the examination and diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma and they allow better precision of diagnosis of pancreatic focal lesions

Locally advanced breast cancer is a specific clinic entity, comprising various degrees of breast cancer local and regional extension. This term is applied to nonmetastatic large primary tumors (including inflammatory breast carcinoma), with or without extensive regional lymph node involvement, with a rapid or slow evolution, and usually with poor prognosis. This clinical presentation of mammary carcinoma is common in developing countries (30% to 60%), but also with a remarkable incidence in developed countries (10% to 20%). During many decades patients were treated with radical surgery or radiation therapy and with their combination, but always with poor results. The inclusion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment enabled more favorable treatment results. The mortality from disseminated disease is the main problem in these patients, inducing the question of need for additional postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy. For steroid receptor positive patients hormonotherapy is a convenient choice of maintaining treatment. In endocrine non-responsive tumors, the role of postoperative chemotherapy is doubtful, having in mind preoperative chemotherapy and cumulative toxic effects. New trials including the large number of patients are necessary to obtain the definite answer whether the maintaining chemotherapy is useful but today it seems that additive postoperative treatment is not more efficient than preoperative alone

Background: Ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) are the most important imaging techniques in the diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma and disease staging; they are also very useful in monitoring and follow-up of treatment efficacy. The problems with imaging diagnostics arise in certain cases of pancreatic focal lesions - for example in the differentiation of focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. Our objectives were the evaluation of US and MR reliability and determination of the importance of oncomarker CA 19-9 in the diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma. Methods: Our investigation included patients with pancreatic focal mass suspected of malignancy. All patients were examined by ultrasonography, MR, and ultrasound-guided needle biopsy. Cytopathologic examination of the bioptic samples was used to diagnose the disease. Oncomarker CA 19-9 was done in all patients. Results: MR imaging and US examination made possible the correct diagnosis of carcinoma in case of 17 patients; in three patients with focal chronic pancreatitis the diagnosis was false positive. No case of false negative diagnosis was found. The value of oncomarker CA 19-9 was determined and it was clearly positive (over 150 U/ml) in all patients. Conclusion Imaging techniques gave good results in the evaluation of pancreatic pathology. However, when using imaging techniques differential diagnosis between focal chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma seems to be major problem. Correlation of imaging technique and identification of CA 19-9 has an important role in the diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma. Imaging techniques and identification of oncomarker CA 19-9 are complementary methods in the examination and diagnostics of pancreatic carcinoma and they allow better precision of diagnosis of pancreatic focal lesions