Y Jinhu1, D Jianping, L Xin, Z Yuanli. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reported MR imaging characteristics of cavernous sinus cavernous hemangiomas (CSCHs) in the literature are nonspecific. The purpose of our study was to explore dynamic enhancement features of CSCHs on conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging and to correlate these features with histopathologic subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients (8 male and 13 female; age range, 13-63 years; average age, 42.6 years) with surgically confirmed CSCHs were retrospectively investigated. Preoperative MR study was performed in all cases, consisting of T1-weighted axial imaging, T2-weighted axial imaging, T1-weighted sagittal imaging, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted axial, sagittal, and coronal images. RESULTS: There were 4.8% (1/21) that showed homogeneous enhancement on all 3 contrast-enhanced sequences, whereas 95.2% (20/21) demonstrated heterogeneous enhancement on the first contrast-enhanced sequence. Among the 20 lesions, on subsequent contrast-enhanced sequences, 55.0% (11/20) showed homogeneous enhancement, whereas 35.0% (7/20) of lesions showed progressive contrast "filling in." The remaining 10% (2/20) exhibited no apparent enhancement changes. The 95.2% (20/21) of lesions with heterogeneous enhancement on the first contrast-enhanced sequence correlated with type B or type C pathologic findings, whereas 4.8% (1/21) with homogeneous enhancement correlated with type A pathologic findings. Among the 20 type B or type C lesions, 80% (16/20) achieved total or near-total resection. CONCLUSION: Progressive contrast "filling in" in the tumors on conventional contrast-enhanced MR images can aid in differentiating between cavernous sinus lesions and suggest the diagnosis of cavernous hemangiomas.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reported MR imaging characteristics of cavernous sinus cavernous hemangiomas (CSCHs) in the literature are nonspecific. The purpose of our study was to explore dynamic enhancement features of CSCHs on conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging and to correlate these features with histopathologic subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients (8 male and 13 female; age range, 13-63 years; average age, 42.6 years) with surgically confirmed CSCHs were retrospectively investigated. Preoperative MR study was performed in all cases, consisting of T1-weighted axial imaging, T2-weighted axial imaging, T1-weighted sagittal imaging, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted axial, sagittal, and coronal images. RESULTS: There were 4.8% (1/21) that showed homogeneous enhancement on all 3 contrast-enhanced sequences, whereas 95.2% (20/21) demonstrated heterogeneous enhancement on the first contrast-enhanced sequence. Among the 20 lesions, on subsequent contrast-enhanced sequences, 55.0% (11/20) showed homogeneous enhancement, whereas 35.0% (7/20) of lesions showed progressive contrast "filling in." The remaining 10% (2/20) exhibited no apparent enhancement changes. The 95.2% (20/21) of lesions with heterogeneous enhancement on the first contrast-enhanced sequence correlated with type B or type C pathologic findings, whereas 4.8% (1/21) with homogeneous enhancement correlated with type A pathologic findings. Among the 20 type B or type C lesions, 80% (16/20) achieved total or near-total resection. CONCLUSION: Progressive contrast "filling in" in the tumors on conventional contrast-enhanced MR images can aid in differentiating between cavernous sinus lesions and suggest the diagnosis of cavernous hemangiomas.
Authors: Alexander Rauscher; Jan Sedlacik; Markus Barth; Hans-Joachim Mentzel; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Oswaldo Ignácio de Tella; Marco Antonio Herculano; Mirto Nelso Prandini; João Norberto Stavile; Antonio de Pádua Furquim Bonatelli Journal: Arq Neuropsiquiatr Date: 2003-04-16 Impact factor: 1.420
Authors: Katja Pinker; Ioannis Stavrou; Pavol Szomolanyi; Romana Hoeftberger; Michael Weber; Andreas Stadlbauer; Iris M Noebauer-Huhmann; Engelbert Knosp; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: J C Benson; K L Eschbacher; A Raghunathan; D Johnson; D K Kim; J Van Gompel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Bryan Lubomirsky; Zachary B Jenner; Morgan B Jude; Kiarash Shahlaie; Reza Assadsangabi; Vladimir Ivanovic Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-12-02
Authors: Temidayo Osunronbi; Pinky May Myat Noe Pwint; John Usuah; John Cain; Sachin Mathur; Nihal T Gurusinghe; Gareth A Roberts; Andrew F Alalade Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 2.800
Authors: Guido Trasimeni; Marina Auconi; Andrea Grossi; Olga Gagliardo; Andrea Romano; Edoardo Covelli; Alessandro Bozzao Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2019-03-15