<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.0" article-type="healthcare" lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">IJCRR</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">I Journ Cur Res Re</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Current Research and Review</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">I Journ Cur Res Re</abbrev-journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2231-2196</issn><issn pub-type="opub">0975-5241</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Radiance Research Academy</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">1027</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi"/><article-id pub-id-type="doi-url"/><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING OF INTRACRANIAL NEOPLASMS: HOW FREQUENT ARE INDICATIVE FINDINGS IN CT AND MRI?&#13;
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname/><given-names/></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Jyoti</surname><given-names/></name></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>4</day><month>12</month><year>2013</year></pub-date><volume>)</volume><issue/><fpage>64</fpage><lpage>73</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>This article is copyright of Popeye Publishing, 2009</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2009</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>Objective: This study aims to compare the ability of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for detection, characterization and localization of intracranial neoplasms. Material and Methods: Total 60 cases with clinical suspicion of intracranial neoplasm of all age groups and either sex were evaluated. All MR images were obtained with a 1.5-T superconducting system (SIEMENS) using a circularly polarized head coil. Pre and post contrast CT was done in all cases on 64 Slice Helical Seimens Somatom CT scanner machine. Results: CT proved to be superior in demonstrating calcifications and a typical tumor density. On the other hand, MRI was better suited for identifying the extraaxial location of tumors, the broad contact of tumors to the meninges, tumor capsules and contrast enhancement adjacent to the tumors. Both methods provided nearly equal results in demonstrating mass effects, hyperostoses, intensive and homogeneous contrast enhancement, and smooth tumor contours after contrast administration. On the whole, neither of the two methods demonstrated a universal superiority for the diagnosis of intracranial neoplasms. Rather, each method displayed distinct advantages. Conclusion: Application of a diagnostic algorithm that integrates advanced imaging features with conventional imaging findings may help the practicing radiologist make a more specific diagnosis for an intracranial tumor.&#13;
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Computed tomography</kwd><kwd> intracranial neoplasm</kwd><kwd> intratumoral calcification</kwd><kwd> Magnetic resonance imaging</kwd><kwd> supratentorial.</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front></article>
