Literature DB >> 20501723

Middle ear cholesteatoma: non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR imaging versus delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging--value in detection.

Bert De Foer1, Jean-Philippe Vercruysse, Anja Bernaerts, Joke Meersschaert, Christoph Kenis, Marc Pouillon, Luc De Beuckeleer, Johan Michiels, Kris Bogaerts, Filip Deckers, Thomas Somers, Robert Hermans, Erwin Offeciers, Jan W Casselman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare non-echo-planar (non-EP) diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging, delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and the combination of both techniques in the evaluation of patients with cholesteatoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study, for which the need to obtain informed consent was waived, included 57 patients clinically suspected of having a middle ear cholesteatoma without a history of surgery and 63 patients imaged before "second-look" surgery. Four blinded radiologists evaluated three sets of MR images: a set of delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted images, a set of non-EP DW images, and a set of both kinds of images. Overall sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV), as well as intra- and interobserver agreement, were assessed and compared among methods. To correct for the correlation between different readings, a generalized estimating equations logistic regression model was fitted. Results were compared with surgical results, which were regarded as the standard of reference.
RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV were significantly different between the three methods (P < .005). Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 56.7% and 67.6% with the delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted images and 82.6% and 87.2% with the non-EP DW images. Sensitivity for the combination of both kinds of images was 84.2%, while specificity was 88.2%. The overall PPV was 88.0% for delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted images, 96.0% for non-EP DW images, and 96.3%for the combination of both kinds of images. The overall NPV was 27.0% for delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted images, 56.5% for non-EP DW images, and 59.6% for the combination of both kinds of images.
CONCLUSION: MR imaging for detection of middle ear cholesteatoma can be performed by using non-EP DW imaging sequences alone. Use of the non-EP DW imaging sequence combined with a delayed gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted sequence yielded no significant increases in sensitivity, specificity, NPV, or PPV over the use of the non-EP DW imaging sequence alone. Copyright RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20501723     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  28 in total

1.  Ultrashort echo time imaging of normal middle ear ossicles: a feasibility study.

Authors:  K Yamashita; T Yoshiura; A Hiwatashi; H Kamano; H Honda
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 2.419

Review 2.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the temporal bone.

Authors:  B De Foer; J-P Vercruysse; M Spaepen; T Somers; M Pouillon; E Offeciers; J W Casselman
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  High-resolution three-dimensional diffusion-weighted MRI/CT image data fusion for cholesteatoma surgical planning: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Koji Yamashita; Akio Hiwatashi; Osamu Togao; Kazufumi Kikuchi; Nozomu Matsumoto; Makoto Obara; Takashi Yoshiura; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-12-28       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Visualization of anatomy in normal and pathologic middle ears by cone beam CT.

Authors:  Christian Güldner; Isabell Diogo; Eva Bernd; Stephanie Dräger; Magis Mandapathil; Afshin Teymoortash; Hesham Negm; Thomas Wilhelm
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Computed tomography and magnetic resonance fusion imaging in cholesteatoma preoperative assessment.

Authors:  Agustín Campos; Federico Mata; Rosa Reboll; María Luisa Peris; Jorge Basterra
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Bioactive glass granules for mastoid and epitympanic surgical obliteration: CT and MRI appearance.

Authors:  Daniele Bernardeschi; Bruno Law-Ye; Franck Bielle; Baptiste Hochet; Olivier Sterkers; Didier Dormont; Nadya Pyatigorskaya
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  MRI for the diagnosis of recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma in children--can we optimize the technique? Preliminary study.

Authors:  Anne Geoffray; Myriam Guesmi; Jean François Nebbia; Béatrice Leloutre; Sonanda Bailleux; Claude Maschi
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2012-11-18

8.  Open and closed cavity mastoid operations: comparing early hearing results.

Authors:  T Galm; T P C Martin; V Raut
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Single-shot turbo spin-echo diffusion-weighted imaging for retinoblastoma: initial experience.

Authors:  P de Graaf; P J W Pouwels; F Rodjan; A C Moll; S M Imhof; D L Knol; E Sanchez; P van der Valk; J A Castelijns
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  Use of non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of cholesteatomas in high-risk tympanic retraction pockets.

Authors:  A Alvo; C Garrido; Á Salas; G Miranda; C E Stott; P H Delano
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.