Literature DB >> 22075076

Three-year ear, nose, and throat cross-sectional analysis of audiometric protocols for magnetic resonance imaging screening of acoustic tumors.

Teddy Caramoan Cheng1, Michael J Wareing.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate audiometric protocols and recommend protocols with best sensitivity and specificity for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening of acoustic tumors; (2) determine clinical risks (false negative) of missing acoustic tumors and potential wastes in screening (false positive) nonacoustic tumors or radiologically "normal" cases; and (3) identify the decibel difference and range of frequencies compared by the best-performing protocols. STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with chart review.
SETTING: Ear, nose, and throat (ENT); audiology; and radiology departments in a tertiary-care hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Three-year cohort (2006-2009) of 1751 ENT patients underwent MRI screening and pure-tone audiometry indicating sensorineural hearing loss. Audiometric protocols were ranked by highest sensitivity to acoustic tumors, specificity A to nonacoustic tumors, and specificity B to "radiologically normal" cases.
RESULTS: No audiometric protocols achieved 100% sensitivity or specificity rates. Only 2 protocols achieved ≥90% sensitivity: the AMCLASS-A-Urben protocol (93.16%) and the Mangham protocol (91.58%). Eleven of 15 protocols for specificity A and 12 of 15 protocols for specificity B achieved ≥50%. Clinical risks ranged from 6.84% to 18.95%, whereas potential wastes ranged from 33.56% to 68.37% for specificity A and 31.76% to 66.86% for specificity B. Interaural difference parameters indicating highest mean sensitivity were on the order of ≥10 dB, ≥15 dB, and ≥20 dB. For frequency comparison parameters, "2 or more adjacent frequency" and "single-frequency" comparison indicated higher mean sensitivity than the "averaged multifrequency" comparison. Mean specificity showed an opposite pattern.
CONCLUSIONS: For optimum sensitivity, the Mangham protocol is preferred (sensitivity, 91.58%; specificity A, 44.23%; specificity B, 44.91%), which proposes a ≥10-dB interaural difference, averaging 1 to 8 kHz. For optimum specificity, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery protocol is preferred (sensitivity, 87.37%; specificity A, 65.38%; specificity B, 66.04%), which proposes ≥15 dB between ears, averaging 0.5 to 3 kHz.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22075076     DOI: 10.1177/0194599811427384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  3 in total

Review 1.  EAONO Position Statement on Vestibular Schwannoma: Imaging Assessment. What are the Indications for Performing a Screening MRI Scan for a Potential Vestibular Schwannoma?

Authors:  Jérôme Waterval; Romain Kania; Thomas Somers
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.017

2.  Evaluation of pure-tone audiometric protocols in vestibular schwannoma screening.

Authors:  Matej Vnencak; Elina Huttunen; Antti A Aarnisalo; Jussi Jero; Katja Liukkonen; Saku T Sinkkonen
Journal:  J Otol       Date:  2020-12-31

3.  Multiple Audiometric Analysis in the Screening of Vestibular Schwannoma.

Authors:  Erika Celis-Aguilar; Alejandra Obeso-Pereda; Karla M Castro-Bórquez; Edgar Dehesa-Lopez; Alfredo Vega-Alarcon; Heloisa Coutinho-De Toledo
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-22
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.