Literature DB >> 12063216

Mass screening for retrocochlear disorders: low-field-strength (0.2-T) versus high-field-strength (1.5-T) MR imaging.

Frédérique Dubrulle1, Julia Delomez, Alireza Kiaei, Pierre Berger, Christophe Vincent, François-Michel M Vaneecloo, Laurent Lemaitre.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: In patients with clinical symptoms suggestive of a retrocochlear disorder, contrast-enhanced T1-weighted spin-echo (SE) high-field-strength MR imaging is considered the criterion standard in assessing vestibular schwannoma. However, only 10-20% of its findings are pathologic. Our purpose was to prospectively compare the performance of low-field-strength MR imaging in screening for retrocochlear disorders, with high-field-strength MR imaging as the criterion standard.
METHODS: A total of 287 patients with suspected retrocochlear disease underwent axial 1.5-T MR imaging with a T1-weighted SE sequence before and after contrast enhancement and with a high-resolution T2-weighted construction interference in steady state sequence. At immediate follow-up, the same patients underwent axial 0.2-T T1-weighted SE imaging without additional contrast enhancement. Results were classified as negative, positive, or uncertain and were analyzed in light of the patients' clinical symptoms.
RESULTS: MR imaging at 1.5 T depicted 63 disorders (21.95%), including 53 schwannomas, three other tumors, and seven other disorders (ie, gadolinium-enhancing inner ear, facial nerve, or meninges). MR imaging at 0.2 T showed evidence of 58 disorders; five disorders were not detected, although all schwannomas and other tumors were seen, including those smaller than 2 mm, and only two (28.6%) of the other disorders were detected. When correlated with clinical data, results showed that the five undetected disorders occurred in patients with unusual clinical signs.
CONCLUSION: MR imaging at 0.2 T provided high sensitivity in detecting vestibular schwannoma of the internal auditory canal or cerebellopontine angle; it can be used for mass screening for this disease. Positive and uncertain imaging findings should be followed up with high-field-strength MR imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12063216      PMCID: PMC7976922     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  17 in total

1.  MR imaging of the knee at 0.2 and 1.5 T: correlation with surgery.

Authors:  A Cotten; E Delfaut; X Demondion; F Lapègue; M Boukhelifa; N Boutry; P Chastanet; F Gougeon
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  [Low-field MRI of the knee joint: results of a prospective, arthroscopically controlled study].

Authors:  K F Kreitner; M Hansen; S Schadmand-Fischer; F Krummenauer; M Runkel
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  1999-01

Review 3.  Imaging evaluation of sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  H C Davidson
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 1.875

4.  T2-weighted MR characteristics of internal auditory canal masses.

Authors:  M B Fukui; J L Weissman; H D Curtin; E Kanal
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Cost-effective screening for acoustic neuroma with unenhanced MR: a clinician's perspective.

Authors:  R K Jackler
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  MR arthrography of the shoulder: comparison of low-field (0.2 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) imaging.

Authors:  R Loew; K F Kreitner; M Runkel; J Zoellner; M Thelen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Detection of acoustic schwannoma: use of constructive interference in the steady state three-dimensional MR.

Authors:  S L Stuckey; A J Harris; S M Mannolini
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  Low-field versus high-field MR imaging of the knee: a comparison of signal behaviour and diagnostic performance.

Authors:  P M Parizel; H A Dijkstra; G P Geenen; P A Kint; R J Versteylen; P J van Wiechen; A M De Schepper
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Optimizing MR imaging for detecting small tumors in the cerebellopontine angle and internal auditory canal.

Authors:  D R Enzmann; J O'Donohue
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  [Comparative magnetic resonance imaging of renal space-occupying lesions with a high and low field MRI system].

Authors:  H B Gehl; H Lorch; O B Amblank; B Engerhoff; H D Weiss
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  1998-11
View more
  2 in total

1.  Non-cryogenic anatomical imaging in ultra-low field regime: hand MRI demonstration.

Authors:  I Savukov; T Karaulanov; A Castro; P Volegov; A Matlashov; A Urbatis; J Gomez; M Espy
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 2.229

2.  Non-cryogenic ultra-low field MRI of wrist-forearm area.

Authors:  I Savukov; T Karaulanov; C J V Wurden; L Schultz
Journal:  J Magn Reson       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.229

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.