Literature DB >> 17213420

Which MR imaging sequences are necessary in determining the need for radiation therapy for cord compression? A prospective study.

A J Johnson1, J Ying, T El Gammal, R D Timmerman, R Y Kim, B Littenberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: To determine which MR imaging sequences are necessary to assess for spinal metastases.
METHODS: Hypothetical MR imaging interpretations and management plans were made prospectively for consecutive adult cases acquired retrospectively. Standardized MR imaging protocols were independently interpreted by 2 neuroradiologists. MR imaging protocol types varied: 1) T1-weighted images only; 2) T1-weighted and T2-weighted images; 3) T1-weighted and postcontrast T1-weighted images; and 4) T1- and T2-weighted images and postcontrast T1-weighted images. Hypothetical management plans were created by 2 radiation oncologists. Logit model was used to investigate the effect of MR imaging protocol type on the probability of recommending radiation therapy (RT). Mixed effect models were used to investigate whether median spinal level or total number of spinal levels of planned RT was associated with MR imaging protocol type.
RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were evaluated, each with multiple scan interpretations. Logit model showed that neither MR imaging protocol type nor neuroradiologist reader affected the probability that the oncologist would recommend RT (all P > .50). Mixed models showed that neither ML nor NL was affected by MR imaging protocol type or by neuroradiologist reader (all P > .12).
CONCLUSION: Although MR imaging is known to be the most useful diagnostic test in suspected spinal cord compression, which particular MR images are necessary remain unclear. Compared with T1-weighted images alone, the additional use of T2-weighted and/or postcontrast T1-weighted sequences did not significantly affect the probability that RT would be recommended or the levels that would be chosen for RT in our study. Our data suggest that unenhanced T1-weighted images may be sufficient for evaluation of possible cord compression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17213420      PMCID: PMC8134095     

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


  22 in total

1.  Spinal cord compression due to metastatic disease: diagnosis with MR imaging versus myelography.

Authors:  R F Carmody; P J Yang; G W Seeley; J F Seeger; E C Unger; J E Johnson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Malignant extradural spinal tumors: MR imaging with Gd-DTPA.

Authors:  G Sze; G Krol; R D Zimmerman; M D Deck
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Detection of vertebral metastases: comparison between MR imaging and bone scintigraphy.

Authors:  P R Algra; J L Bloem; H Tissing; T H Falke; J W Arndt; L J Verboom
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of spinal tumours.

Authors:  C I Rothwell; T Jaspan; B S Worthington; I M Holland
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Benign versus pathologic compression fractures of vertebral bodies: assessment with conventional spin-echo, chemical-shift, and STIR MR imaging.

Authors:  L L Baker; S B Goodman; I Perkash; B Lane; D R Enzmann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Multiple myeloma: appearance at MR imaging.

Authors:  H I Libshitz; S R Malthouse; D Cunningham; A D MacVicar; J E Husband
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Detection of multiple myeloma involving the spine: efficacy of fat-suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  A Rahmouni; M Divine; D Mathieu; M Golli; T H Dao; N Jazaerli; M C Anglade; F Reyes; N Vasile
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Cost effectiveness and outcome assessment of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing cord compression.

Authors:  J E Jordan; S S Donaldson; D R Enzmann
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Early MR demonstration of spinal metastases in patients with normal radiographs and CT and radionuclide bone scans.

Authors:  E Avrahami; R Tadmor; O Dally; H Hadar
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1989 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.826

Review 10.  Metastatic spine tumors.

Authors:  John K Ratliff; Paul R Cooper
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 0.954

View more
  3 in total

1.  Does MR perfusion imaging impact management decisions for patients with brain tumors? A prospective study.

Authors:  C P Geer; J Simonds; A Anvery; M Y Chen; J H Burdette; M E Zapadka; T L Ellis; S B Tatter; G J Lesser; M D Chan; K P McMullen; A J Johnson
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  Two-tiered approach to MRI for headache: a cost-effective way to use an expensive technology.

Authors:  Aseem Sharma; Martin Reis; Matthew S Parsons; Franz J Wippold; John Chrisinger; Todd J Schwedt; Thomas K Pilgram
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Imaging of spinal metastatic disease.

Authors:  Lubdha M Shah; Karen L Salzman
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-11-03
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.