BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several studies have reported on the clinical utility of DWI in head and neck cancer, but none of these studies compared HASTE with EPI-DWI in patients with head and neck cancer. The aim of our study was to compare detection and delineation of primary tumors and lymph nodes by using HASTE and EPI-DWI techniques in patients with HNSCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with HNSCC and a total of 12 primary tumors and 77 visualized lymph nodes on MR imaging underwent DWI by using both EPI-based and HASTE techniques. Interobserver agreement for detection, delineation, and ADC values of primary tumors and lymph nodes was assessed by 2 radiologists, and artifacts for both DWI techniques were described. RESULTS: The number of lesions (primary tumors and lymph nodes) identified on pretreatment EPI-DWI was higher compared with pretreatment HASTE-DWI, with means of total lesions of 88.5 and 69.0, respectively. Delineation of lesions was also better on pretreatment EPI-DWI compared with pretreatment HASTE-DWI, with means of well-delineated lesions of 80.5 and 27.5, respectively. Both EPI- and HASTE-DWI showed good interobserver agreement between radiologists of ADC values in lesions with ICC values of 0.79 and 0.92, respectively. Intraobserver agreement for ADC values in lesions assessed with EPI- versus HASTE-DWI techniques was low, with ICC values of 0.31 and 0.42, respectively. Significant interobserver disagreement concerning detection was only seen with HASTE-DWI, and none of the DWI techniques showed significant interobserver disagreements regarding delineation. EPI-DWI was more prone to susceptibility artifacts than HASTE-DWI: Ninety-one percent of primary tumors and 16% of lymph nodes were affected by susceptibility artifacts on pretreatment EPI-DWI, whereas these artifacts were not seen on HASTE-DWI. CONCLUSIONS: Primary tumors and lymph nodes are more easily visualized on EPI-DWI compared with HASTE-DWI. EPI-DWI has geometric distortion, however, which has a negative effect on interobserver agreement of ADC values.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several studies have reported on the clinical utility of DWI in head and neck cancer, but none of these studies compared HASTE with EPI-DWI in patients with head and neck cancer. The aim of our study was to compare detection and delineation of primary tumors and lymph nodes by using HASTE and EPI-DWI techniques in patients with HNSCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with HNSCC and a total of 12 primary tumors and 77 visualized lymph nodes on MR imaging underwent DWI by using both EPI-based and HASTE techniques. Interobserver agreement for detection, delineation, and ADC values of primary tumors and lymph nodes was assessed by 2 radiologists, and artifacts for both DWI techniques were described. RESULTS: The number of lesions (primary tumors and lymph nodes) identified on pretreatment EPI-DWI was higher compared with pretreatment HASTE-DWI, with means of total lesions of 88.5 and 69.0, respectively. Delineation of lesions was also better on pretreatment EPI-DWI compared with pretreatment HASTE-DWI, with means of well-delineated lesions of 80.5 and 27.5, respectively. Both EPI- and HASTE-DWI showed good interobserver agreement between radiologists of ADC values in lesions with ICC values of 0.79 and 0.92, respectively. Intraobserver agreement for ADC values in lesions assessed with EPI- versus HASTE-DWI techniques was low, with ICC values of 0.31 and 0.42, respectively. Significant interobserver disagreement concerning detection was only seen with HASTE-DWI, and none of the DWI techniques showed significant interobserver disagreements regarding delineation. EPI-DWI was more prone to susceptibility artifacts than HASTE-DWI: Ninety-one percent of primary tumors and 16% of lymph nodes were affected by susceptibility artifacts on pretreatment EPI-DWI, whereas these artifacts were not seen on HASTE-DWI. CONCLUSIONS:Primary tumors and lymph nodes are more easily visualized on EPI-DWI compared with HASTE-DWI. EPI-DWI has geometric distortion, however, which has a negative effect on interobserver agreement of ADC values.
Authors: M W van den Brekel; H V Stel; J A Castelijns; J J Nauta; I van der Waal; J Valk; C J Meyer; G B Snow Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Sandra Nuyts; Karen Deraedt; Piet Dirix; Pascal Hamaekers; Vincent Vander Poorten; Pierre Delaere; Robert Hermans Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P A T Baltzer; D M Renz; K-H Herrmann; M Dietzel; I Krumbein; M Gajda; O Camara; J R Reichenbach; W A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J Wang; S Takashima; F Takayama; S Kawakami; A Saito; T Matsushita; M Momose; T Ishiyama Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sungheon Kim; Laurie Loevner; Harry Quon; Eric Sherman; Gregory Weinstein; Alex Kilger; Harish Poptani Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A S Kolff-Gart; P J W Pouwels; D P Noij; R Ljumanovic; V Vandecaveye; F de Keyzer; R de Bree; P de Graaf; D L Knol; J A Castelijns Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Charlotte S Schouten; Remco de Bree; Lisa van der Putten; Daniel P Noij; Otto S Hoekstra; Emile F I Comans; Birgit I Witte; Patricia A Doornaert; C René Leemans; Jonas A Castelijns Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2014-08