BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is well accepted for the contemporary diagnosis of venous malformation (VM), providing hemodynamic and anatomic information on the lesion, including its relationship with surrounding tissues and organs. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 196 clinically suspected VM patients were reviewed retrospectively to assess the accuracy and reliability of MRI for the diagnosis of VM. Initial workup included MRI, duplex ultrasonography, and whole-body blood pool scintigraphy, along with additional transarterial lung perfusion scintigraphy and lymphoscintigraphic assessment when indicated. Phlebography or arteriography, or both, were generally reserved as a road map for the treatment. A total of 294 MRI findings for 196 patients were also compared with the matching duplex ultrasonography findings available for 178 patients and matching whole-body blood pool scintigraphy findings for 136 patients. The phlebographic findings available for 87 patients were also compared. RESULTS: Among the 196 patients with clinically suspected VM, 174 were confirmed as having VM by MRI with true-positive findings and 2 as false-positive findings by MRI (sensitivity, 98.9%; positive predictive value, 98.9%). MRI ruled out VM for 18 patients with true-negative findings, though 2 were false-negative (specificity, 90%; negative predictive value, 90.0%). Two positive and two false-negative findings of VM, made by MRI, were subsequently confirmed by angiography. Among the 87 patients for whom phlebographic findings were available, 73 were confirmed as true-positive diagnoses of VM, 1 as false-positive, 11 as true-negative, and 2 as false-negative (sensitivity, 97.3%; specificity, 91.7%; positive predictive value, 98.7%; negative predictive value, 84.6%). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is likely to modify the traditional role of angiography for the management of VM and become a new standard, at least for diagnosis. MRI also is an excellent parameter in the assessment of treatment results.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is well accepted for the contemporary diagnosis of venous malformation (VM), providing hemodynamic and anatomic information on the lesion, including its relationship with surrounding tissues and organs. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 196 clinically suspected VM patients were reviewed retrospectively to assess the accuracy and reliability of MRI for the diagnosis of VM. Initial workup included MRI, duplex ultrasonography, and whole-body blood pool scintigraphy, along with additional transarterial lung perfusion scintigraphy and lymphoscintigraphic assessment when indicated. Phlebography or arteriography, or both, were generally reserved as a road map for the treatment. A total of 294 MRI findings for 196 patients were also compared with the matching duplex ultrasonography findings available for 178 patients and matching whole-body blood pool scintigraphy findings for 136 patients. The phlebographic findings available for 87 patients were also compared. RESULTS: Among the 196 patients with clinically suspected VM, 174 were confirmed as having VM by MRI with true-positive findings and 2 as false-positive findings by MRI (sensitivity, 98.9%; positive predictive value, 98.9%). MRI ruled out VM for 18 patients with true-negative findings, though 2 were false-negative (specificity, 90%; negative predictive value, 90.0%). Two positive and two false-negative findings of VM, made by MRI, were subsequently confirmed by angiography. Among the 87 patients for whom phlebographic findings were available, 73 were confirmed as true-positive diagnoses of VM, 1 as false-positive, 11 as true-negative, and 2 as false-negative (sensitivity, 97.3%; specificity, 91.7%; positive predictive value, 98.7%; negative predictive value, 84.6%). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is likely to modify the traditional role of angiography for the management of VM and become a new standard, at least for diagnosis. MRI also is an excellent parameter in the assessment of treatment results.
Authors: Constantin Goldann; Maximilian Helm; Wibke Uller; Claudia Fellner; Simone Hammer; Andreas Deistung; Alexander Gussew; Jonas Rosendahl; Moritz Wildgruber; Walther A Wohlgemuth; Richard Brill Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Dominik F Vollherbst; Philipp Gebhart; Steffen Kargus; Astrid Burger; Reinald Kühle; Patrick Günther; Jürgen Hoffmann; Martin Bendszus; Markus A Möhlenbruch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.240