T A Abele1, D A Besachio2, E P Quigley3, R K Gurgel4, C Shelton4, H R Harnsberger3, R H Wiggins5. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (T.A.A., E.P.Q., H.R.H., R.H.W.) travis.abele@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Radiology (D.A.B.), Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Virginia. 3. From the Departments of Radiology (T.A.A., E.P.Q., H.R.H., R.H.W.). 4. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (R.K.G., C.S., R.H.W.), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5. From the Departments of Radiology (T.A.A., E.P.Q., H.R.H., R.H.W.) Biomedical Informatics (R.H.W.) Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (R.K.G., C.S., R.H.W.), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While enhanced T1WI is considered the "gold standard" for detection of internal auditory canal pathology, unenhanced fluid-sensitive sequences have shown high sensitivity for lesion identification. Our purpose was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an unenhanced MR imaging protocol using axial CISS and coronal T2WI for detection of small (10 mm or less) internal auditory canal lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with small internal auditory canal lesions and 13 patients without lesions who had undergone MR imaging using the screening protocol and confirmatory gadolinium-enhanced thin section T1WI were identified. Two blinded neuroradiologists retrospectively evaluated all examinations using 1) only axial CISS, 2) only coronal T2WI, and 3) axial and coronal sequences together. Accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and interobserver agreement were assessed. RESULTS: Median maximum lesion dimension was 4 mm (range, 2-10 mm). Accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for axial CISS alone were 0.94, 0.96, and 0.91 for observer 1 and 0.94, 0.92, and 1.00 for observer 2. The data for the coronal T2WI sequence only were 0.94, 0.96, and 0.91 for observer 1, and 0.99, 1.00, and 0.96 for observer 2. Using axial and coronal sequences, the data were 0.97, 0.96, and 1.00 for observer 1, and 0.99, 0.98, and 1.00 for observer 2. κ coefficients were 0.84 for the axial sequence only, 0.90 for coronal only, and 0.91 for axial and coronal both. CONCLUSIONS: Screening noncontrast MR imaging using a combination of axial CISS and coronal T2WI sequences can detect small internal auditory canal lesions with 100% sensitivity and excellent interobserver agreement.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While enhanced T1WI is considered the "gold standard" for detection of internal auditory canal pathology, unenhanced fluid-sensitive sequences have shown high sensitivity for lesion identification. Our purpose was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an unenhanced MR imaging protocol using axial CISS and coronal T2WI for detection of small (10 mm or less) internal auditory canal lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with small internal auditory canal lesions and 13 patients without lesions who had undergone MR imaging using the screening protocol and confirmatory gadolinium-enhanced thin section T1WI were identified. Two blinded neuroradiologists retrospectively evaluated all examinations using 1) only axial CISS, 2) only coronal T2WI, and 3) axial and coronal sequences together. Accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and interobserver agreement were assessed. RESULTS: Median maximum lesion dimension was 4 mm (range, 2-10 mm). Accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity for axial CISS alone were 0.94, 0.96, and 0.91 for observer 1 and 0.94, 0.92, and 1.00 for observer 2. The data for the coronal T2WI sequence only were 0.94, 0.96, and 0.91 for observer 1, and 0.99, 1.00, and 0.96 for observer 2. Using axial and coronal sequences, the data were 0.97, 0.96, and 1.00 for observer 1, and 0.99, 0.98, and 1.00 for observer 2. κ coefficients were 0.84 for the axial sequence only, 0.90 for coronal only, and 0.91 for axial and coronal both. CONCLUSIONS: Screening noncontrast MR imaging using a combination of axial CISS and coronal T2WI sequences can detect small internal auditory canal lesions with 100% sensitivity and excellent interobserver agreement.
Authors: Neal K Bangerter; Brian A Hargreaves; Shreyas S Vasanawala; John M Pauly; Garry E Gold; Dwight G Nishimura Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: John I Lane; Heidi Ward; Robert J Witte; Matt A Bernstein; Colin L W Driscoll Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: I A Zealley; R C Cooper; K M Clifford; R S Campbell; A J Potterton; I Zammit-Maempel; C J Baudouin; A Coulthard Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: W A Mehan; K Buch; M F Brasz; F F J Simonis; S MacDonald; S Rincon; J E Kirsch; P Caruso Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Shivaram Avula; Andrew Peet; Giovanni Morana; Paul Morgan; Monika Warmuth-Metz; Tim Jaspan Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Arnaud Attyé; G Dumas; I Troprès; M Roustit; A Karkas; E Banciu; J Pietras; L Lamalle; S Schmerber; A Krainik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthew G Crowson; Daniel J Rocke; Jenny K Hoang; Jane L Weissman; David M Kaylie Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Mikell Yuhasz; Michael J Hoch; Mari Hagiwara; Mary T Bruno; James S Babb; Esther Raithel; Christoph Forman; Abbas Anwar; J Thomas Roland; Timothy M Shepherd Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Arianna Di Stadio; Laura Dipietro; Massimo Ralli; Mario Faralli; Antonio Della Volpe; Giampietro Ricci; Daniela Messineo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 5.315