We present a case of a patient with Anton's syndrome (i.e., visual anosognosia with confabulations), who developed bilateral occipital lobe infarct. Bilateral occipital brain damage results in blindness, and patients start to confabulate to fill in the missing sensory input. In addition, the patient occasionally becomes agitated and talks to himself, which indicates that, besides Anton's syndrome, he might have had Charles Bonnet syndrome, characterized by both visual loss and hallucinations. Anton syndrome, is not so frequent condition and is most commonly caused by ischemic stroke. In this particular case, the patient had successive bilateral occipital ischemia as a result of massive stenoses of head and neck arteries.

No abstract

Congenital hypoplasia of ICAs is a very rare abnormality, while asymmetry of ICAs is more common. After evaluating severe asymmetry of intracranial ICAs by MRA, MRA of the neck is recommended, especially in patients with a complete anterior part of the circle of Willis.

Objective. Th e aim of this study was to analyse the sensitivity and specifi city of ultrasound and mammography according to breast density and determine which of these diagnostic imagings is a more accurate test for diagnosis of breast cancer. Patients and methods. By means of a cross-sectional study, ultrasound and mammographic examinations of 148 women with breast disease symptoms were analysed. All women underwent surgery and all lesions were examined by histological examination which revealed the presence of 63 breast cancers, and 85 benign lesions. Histological examination was used as the "gold standard". In relation to breast density, the women were separated into two groups, group A: women with "fatty breast" (ACR BI-RADS density categories 1 and 2) and group B: women with "dense breast"(categories 3 and 4). Ultrasound and mammographic fi ndings were classifi ed on the BI-RADS categorical scale of 1-5. For statistical data processing, the logistic regression analysis and the McNemar chi-square test for paired proportions was used. Th e diff erences on the level of p<0.05 were considered statistically signifi cant. Results. In the group of women with breast density categories 1 and 2 the diff erence in the sensitivities (p=1) as well as in the specifi cities (p=0.11) of the two imaging tests was not statistically signifi cant. In the group of women with breast density categories 3 and 4 the ultrasound sensitivity was signifi cantly higher than the mammographic sensitivity (p=0.03) without a statistically signifi cant diff erence in specifi city (p=0.26). Sensitivity of mammography was (linearly -ex; linearity exists between breast density and the logarithm of odds for a positive result) associated with breast density (likelihood ratio χ2 =15.99, p =0.0001). Th e odds ratio for (the probability ofex) a positive mammographic result was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.11-0.58). Th e sensitivity of ultrasound and specifi city of each test were not (linearly -ex) associated with breast density. Conclusion. Breast density had a signifi cant infl uence on the sensitivity of mammography but not on specifi city. Th is is very important because a certain percentage of women, not only under 40 but also aft er 40, have heterogenous and extremely dense breasts (density categories 3 and 4). In these women, ultrasound is a more accurate imaging test than mammography, while in the women with fatty breasts (density categories 1 and 2) these imaging tests are almost equally accurate in breast cancer diagnosis.

Objective. The aim of this study was to analyse individual and combined sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound and mammography in breast cancer diagnosis and emphasize the importance of combining breast imaging modalities. Patients and methods. By means of a cross-sectional study, ultrasound and mammographic examinations of 148 women (mean age 51.6 ± 10.8 years) with breast symptoms were analysed. All women underwent surgery and all lesions were examined by histopathology analysis which revealed the presence of 63 breast cancers, and 85 benign lesions. In relation to age, the women were separated in to a group under 50 years and a group 50 years and older. Ultrasound and mammographic findings were classified on the BI-RADS categorical scale of 1-5. Categories 1, 2 and 3 were considered negative, while categories 4 and 5 were positive for cancer. For statistical data processing the McNemar chi-square test for paired proportions was used. The differences on the level of p<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results. In the group under 50 years, the ultrasound sensitivity was significantly higher than the mammographic sensitivity (p=0.045, c2=4), without a statistically significant difference in specificity (p=0.24, c2=1.39). In the women over 50, a significant difference between sensitivity of ultrasound and mammography was not proved (p=0.68, c 2 =0.17), nor any difference in the specificities (p=0.15, c 2 =2.08). In the group consisting of all patients, the sensitivity of ultrasound was statistically significantly higher in comparison with the sensitivity of mammography (p=0.04, c 2 =4.27) with higher specificity (p=0.04, c 2 =4). By combining the two methods in all patients sensitivity of 96.8% was achieved, in patients up to 50 sensitivity was 90.47% and in patients over 50, sensitivity was 100%. When the two methods were combined in all patients, a decrease in specificity was noted. Conclusion. The combination of ultrasound and mammography in breast cancer diagnosis achieves high sensitivity and the number of undetected breast cancers is reduced to minimum.