Marco Fogante

Dr. Marco Fogante

Radiology, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Marche, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

9Years (2018-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 October 2019 in La radiologia medica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NSNicolò Schicchi
Nicolò Schicchi
MFMarco Fogante
Marco Fogante
PPPaolo Esposto Pirani
Paolo Esposto Pirani
GAGiacomo Agliata
Giacomo Agliata
MBMaria Chiara Basile
Maria Chiara Basile
AGAndrea Giovagnoni
Andrea Giovagnoni

15 September 2020 in La radiologia medica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NSNicolò Schicchi
Nicolò Schicchi
MFMarco Fogante
Marco Fogante
PPPierpaolo Palumbo
Pierpaolo Palumbo
GAGiacomo Agliata
Giacomo Agliata
PPPaolo Esposto Pirani
Paolo Esposto Pirani
AGAndrea Giovagnoni
Andrea Giovagnoni

26 January 2025 in Medicina
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GAGiulio Argalia
Giulio Argalia
ARAlfonso Reginelli
Alfonso Reginelli
EMElisa Molinelli
Elisa Molinelli
ARAnna Russo
Anna Russo
AMAlessandra Michelucci
Alessandra Michelucci
OSOriana Simonetti
Oriana Simonetti
Dermatologic ultrasonography applications are rapidly growing in all skin fields. Thanks to very high spatial resolution, high-frequency and ultra-high-frequency ultrasound can evaluate smaller structures, allowing us to improve diagnosis accuracy and disease activity. Moreover, they can guide treatment, such as drug injection, and assess therapy efficacy and complications. In this narrative review, we evaluated high-frequency ultrasound and ultra-high-frequency ultrasound in infections, inflammatory dermatoses, metabolic and genetic disorders, specific cutaneous structure skin disorders, vascular and external-agent-associated disorders, neoplastic diseases, and aesthetics.

26 February 2019 in La radiologia medica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MFMarco Fogante
Marco Fogante
Corrado TagliatiCorrado Tagliati
Corrado Tagliati
MLMariagrazia De Lisa
Mariagrazia De Lisa
RBRossana Berardi
Rossana Berardi
GGGian Marco Giuseppetti
Gian Marco Giuseppetti
AGAndrea Giovagnoni
Andrea Giovagnoni

1 January 2020 in European Journal of Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NSNicolò Schicchi
Nicolò Schicchi
MFMarco Fogante
Marco Fogante
PPPaolo Esposto Pirani
Paolo Esposto Pirani
GAGiacomo Agliata
Giacomo Agliata
TPTommaso Piva
Tommaso Piva
AGAndrea Giovagnoni
Andrea Giovagnoni

5 October 2021 in Journal of the American Heart Association
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MCMichela Casella
Michela Casella
MBMarco Bergonti
Marco Bergonti
ARAntonio Dello Russo
Antonio Dello Russo
RMRiccardo Maragna
Riccardo Maragna
AGAlessio Gasperetti
Alessio Gasperetti
CTClaudio Tondo
Claudio Tondo
Background: Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is part of 2010 Task Force Criteria (TFC) for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). However, its usage has been curtailed because of its low presumed diagnostic yield, and it is now a poorly used tool. This study aims to analyze the contribution of EMB to the final diagnosis of ARVC. Methods and Results: We included 104 consecutive patients evaluated for a suspicion of ARVC, who were referred for EMB. Patients with suspected left dominant pattern were excluded from the primary analysis. Subjects were initially stratified according to TFC without considering EMB. After EMB, patients were reclassified accordingly, and the reclassification rate was calculated. EMB yielded a diagnostic finding in 92 patients (85.5%). After including EMB evaluation, 20 (43%) more patients “at risk” received a definite diagnosis of ARVC. Overall, 59 patients received a definite diagnosis of ARVC, 34% only after EMB. EMB appeared to be the better‐performing exam with respect to the final diagnosis (β, 2.2; area uder the curve, 0.73; P <0.05). The reclassification improvement after EMB measured 28%. TFC score increased from 3.5±1.3 to 4.3±1.4 ( P <0.001). Notably, active inflammation was present in 6 (10%) patients. Minor complications were reported in only 2% of the cohort. In patients with suspected left‐dominant disease, conventional TFC performed poorly. Conclusions: Electroanatomic voltage mapping–guided EMB was safe and yielded an optimal diagnostic yield. It allowed upgrading of the diagnosis of nearly one‐third of the patients considered “at risk.” Classical TFC without EMB performed poorly in patients with the left dominant form of ARVC.