BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A rapid and accurate MR imaging technique would be beneficial to assess paragangliomas in the head and neck and to distinguish them from other lesions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the combination of elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and unenhanced and enhanced spin-echo imaging (conventional MR imaging) is more accurate than conventional MR imaging alone to assess paragangliomas in the head and neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three radiologists retrospectively and independently reviewed CE-MRA and conventional MR imaging in 27 patients with suspected paragangliomas. The overall image quality and the probability of paraganglioma were recorded. The results of each technique and their combination were analyzed for sensitivity and specificity. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed by using histologic analysis, imaging, and/or clinical findings as the reference standard. RESULTS: Forty-six lesions were found in 27 patients. In the assessment of paragangliomas, the combination of conventional MR imaging and CE-MRA was significantly superior to conventional MR imaging alone. Sensitivity and specificity respectively were the following: for CE-MRA, 100% and 94%; and for conventional MR imaging, 94% and 41%. The specificity of CE-MRA was significantly higher than that of conventional MR imaging (P = .004). There was good-to-excellent interobserver agreement for the paraganglioma probability with CE-MRA (nonweighted kappa, 0.67-0.77), whereas there was fair-to-good interobserver agreement with conventional MR imaging (nonweighted kappa, 0.50-0.65). CONCLUSION: In combination with conventional MR imaging, CE-MRA yields an excellent diagnostic value for the assessment of head and neck paragangliomas; hence, the 2 techniques should be regarded as complementary.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A rapid and accurate MR imaging technique would be beneficial to assess paragangliomas in the head and neck and to distinguish them from other lesions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the combination of elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and unenhanced and enhanced spin-echo imaging (conventional MR imaging) is more accurate than conventional MR imaging alone to assess paragangliomas in the head and neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three radiologists retrospectively and independently reviewed CE-MRA and conventional MR imaging in 27 patients with suspected paragangliomas. The overall image quality and the probability of paraganglioma were recorded. The results of each technique and their combination were analyzed for sensitivity and specificity. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed by using histologic analysis, imaging, and/or clinical findings as the reference standard. RESULTS: Forty-six lesions were found in 27 patients. In the assessment of paragangliomas, the combination of conventional MR imaging and CE-MRA was significantly superior to conventional MR imaging alone. Sensitivity and specificity respectively were the following: for CE-MRA, 100% and 94%; and for conventional MR imaging, 94% and 41%. The specificity of CE-MRA was significantly higher than that of conventional MR imaging (P = .004). There was good-to-excellent interobserver agreement for the paraganglioma probability with CE-MRA (nonweighted kappa, 0.67-0.77), whereas there was fair-to-good interobserver agreement with conventional MR imaging (nonweighted kappa, 0.50-0.65). CONCLUSION: In combination with conventional MR imaging, CE-MRA yields an excellent diagnostic value for the assessment of head and neck paragangliomas; hence, the 2 techniques should be regarded as complementary.
Authors: Ralf Wutke; Werner Lang; Claudia Fellner; Rolf Janka; Christan Denzel; Michael Lell; Werner Bautz; Franz A Fellner Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: René van den Berg; Berit M Verbist; Bart J A Mertens; Andel G L van der Mey; Mark A van Buchem Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D J Kwekkeboom; H van Urk; B K Pauw; S W Lamberts; P P Kooij; R P Hoogma; E P Krenning Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1993-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michèle Duet; Elisabeth Sauvaget; Boris Pételle; Nathalie Rizzo; Jean-Pierre Guichard; Michel Wassef; Joseph Le Cloirec; Philippe Herman; Patrice Tran Ba Huy Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Arthur Varoquaux; Electron Kebebew; Fréderic Sebag; Katherine Wolf; Jean-François Henry; Karel Pacak; David Taïeb Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: David Taïeb; Alexandre Kaliski; Carsten C Boedeker; Victoria Martucci; Tito Fojo; John R Adler; Karel Pacak Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: S Nishimura; T Hirai; Y Shigematsu; M Kitajima; M Morioka; Y Kai; R Minoda; H Uetani; R Murakami; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Aurélien Archier; Arthur Varoquaux; Philippe Garrigue; Marion Montava; Carole Guerin; Sophie Gabriel; Eva Beschmout; Isabelle Morange; Nicolas Fakhry; Frédéric Castinetti; Frédéric Sebag; Anne Barlier; Anderson Loundou; Benjamin Guillet; Karel Pacak; David Taïeb Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-05 Impact factor: 9.236