F Felici1, U Scemama1, D Bendahan2, J-P Lavieille3,4, G Moulin1, C Chagnaud1, M Montava3,4, A Varoquaux5,2. 1. From the Department of Medical Imaging (F.F., U.S., G.M., C.C., A.V.). 2. North Hospital, and CNRS, CRMBM-CEMEREM UMR 7339, 13385 (D.B., A.V.). 3. La Conception University Hospital, Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (J.-P.L., M.M.). 4. UMRT 24 IFSTTAR (J.-P.L., M.M.), Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. 5. From the Department of Medical Imaging (F.F., U.S., G.M., C.C., A.V.) Arthur.VAROQUAUX@ap-hm.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recurrent middle ear cholesteatomas are commonly preoperatively assessed using MR imaging (non-EPI-DWI) and CT. Both modalities are used with the aim of distinguishing scar tissue from cholesteatoma and determining the extent of bone erosions. Inflammation and scar tissue associated with the lesions might hamper a proper delineation of the corresponding extensions on CT images. Using surgical findings as the criterion standard, we assessed the recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma extent using either uncoregistered or fused CT-MR imaging datasets and determined the corresponding accuracy and repeatability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with suspected recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma and preoperative CT-MR imaging datasets were prospectively included. A double-blind assessment and coregistration of the recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma extent and manual delineation of 18 presumed recurrent middle ear cholesteatomas were performed by 2 radiologists and compared with the criterion standard. "Reliability score" was defined to qualify radiologists' confidence. For each volume, segmentation repeatability was assessed on the basis of intraclass correlation coefficient and overlap indices. RESULTS: For the whole set of patients, recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma was further supported by surgical results. Two lesions were excluded from the analysis, given that MR imaging did not show a restricted diffusion. Lesions were accurately localized using the fused datasets, whereas significantly fewer lesions (85%) were correctly localized using uncoregistered images. Reliability scores were larger for fused datasets. Segmentation repeatability showed an almost perfect intraclass correlation coefficient regarding volumes, while overlaps were significantly lower in uncoregistered (52%) compared with fused (60%, P < .001) datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The use of coregistered CT-MR images significantly improved the assessment of recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma with a greater accuracy and better reliability and repeatability.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recurrent middle ear cholesteatomas are commonly preoperatively assessed using MR imaging (non-EPI-DWI) and CT. Both modalities are used with the aim of distinguishing scar tissue from cholesteatoma and determining the extent of bone erosions. Inflammation and scar tissue associated with the lesions might hamper a proper delineation of the corresponding extensions on CT images. Using surgical findings as the criterion standard, we assessed the recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma extent using either uncoregistered or fused CT-MR imaging datasets and determined the corresponding accuracy and repeatability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with suspected recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma and preoperative CT-MR imaging datasets were prospectively included. A double-blind assessment and coregistration of the recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma extent and manual delineation of 18 presumed recurrent middle ear cholesteatomas were performed by 2 radiologists and compared with the criterion standard. "Reliability score" was defined to qualify radiologists' confidence. For each volume, segmentation repeatability was assessed on the basis of intraclass correlation coefficient and overlap indices. RESULTS: For the whole set of patients, recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma was further supported by surgical results. Two lesions were excluded from the analysis, given that MR imaging did not show a restricted diffusion. Lesions were accurately localized using the fused datasets, whereas significantly fewer lesions (85%) were correctly localized using uncoregistered images. Reliability scores were larger for fused datasets. Segmentation repeatability showed an almost perfect intraclass correlation coefficient regarding volumes, while overlaps were significantly lower in uncoregistered (52%) compared with fused (60%, P < .001) datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The use of coregistered CT-MR images significantly improved the assessment of recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma with a greater accuracy and better reliability and repeatability.
Authors: Florian Desmots; Nicolas Fakhry; Julien Mancini; Anthony Reyre; Vincent Vidal; Alexis Jacquier; Laure Santini; Guy Moulin; Arthur Varoquaux Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Garrett D Locketz; Peter M M C Li; Nancy J Fischbein; Samantha J Holdsworth; Nikolas H Blevins Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Kelly G P Kerckhoffs; Maarten B J Kommer; Thom H L van Strien; Simeon J A Visscher; Hanneke Bruijnzeel; Adriana L Smit; Wilko Grolman Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sooah Kim; Ruth P Lim; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 11.105