J C Benson1, M L Carlson2, J I Lane3. 1. Department of Radiology (J.C.B., J.I.L.) benson.john3@mayo.edu. 2. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (M.L.C.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Department of Radiology (J.C.B., J.I.L.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although multishot EPI (readout-segmented EPI) has been touted as a robust DWI sequence for cholesteatoma evaluation, its efficacy in disease detection compared with a non-EPI (eg, HASTE) technique is unknown. This study sought to compare the accuracy of readout-segmented EPI with that of HASTE DWI in cholesteatoma detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was completed of consecutive patients who underwent MR imaging for the evaluation of suspected primary or recurrent/residual cholesteatomas. Included patients had MR imaging examinations that included both HASTE and readout-segmented EPI sequences and confirmed cholesteatomas on a subsequent operation. Two neuroradiologist reviewers assessed all images, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The ratio of signal intensity between the cerebellum and any observed lesion was noted. RESULTS: Of 23 included patients, 12 (52.2%) were women (average age, 47.8 [SD, 25.2] years). All patients had surgically confirmed cholesteatomas: Six (26.1%) were primary and 17 (73.9%) were recidivistic. HASTE images correctly identified cholesteatomas in 100.0% of patients. On readout-segmented EPI sequences, 16 (69.6%) were positive, 5 (21.7%) were equivocal, and 2 (8.7%) were falsely negative. Excellent interobserver agreement was noted between reviews on both HASTE (κ = 1.0) and readout-segmented EPI (κ = 0.9) sequences. The average signal intensity ratio was significantly higher on HASTE than in readout-segmented EPI, facilitating enhanced detection (mean difference 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: HASTE outperforms readout-segmented EPI in the detection of primary cholesteatoma and disease recidivism.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although multishot EPI (readout-segmented EPI) has been touted as a robust DWI sequence for cholesteatoma evaluation, its efficacy in disease detection compared with a non-EPI (eg, HASTE) technique is unknown. This study sought to compare the accuracy of readout-segmented EPI with that of HASTE DWI in cholesteatoma detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was completed of consecutive patients who underwent MR imaging for the evaluation of suspected primary or recurrent/residual cholesteatomas. Included patients had MR imaging examinations that included both HASTE and readout-segmented EPI sequences and confirmed cholesteatomas on a subsequent operation. Two neuroradiologist reviewers assessed all images, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The ratio of signal intensity between the cerebellum and any observed lesion was noted. RESULTS: Of 23 included patients, 12 (52.2%) were women (average age, 47.8 [SD, 25.2] years). All patients had surgically confirmed cholesteatomas: Six (26.1%) were primary and 17 (73.9%) were recidivistic. HASTE images correctly identified cholesteatomas in 100.0% of patients. On readout-segmented EPI sequences, 16 (69.6%) were positive, 5 (21.7%) were equivocal, and 2 (8.7%) were falsely negative. Excellent interobserver agreement was noted between reviews on both HASTE (κ = 1.0) and readout-segmented EPI (κ = 0.9) sequences. The average signal intensity ratio was significantly higher on HASTE than in readout-segmented EPI, facilitating enhanced detection (mean difference 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: HASTE outperforms readout-segmented EPI in the detection of primary cholesteatoma and disease recidivism.
Authors: Mark C J Aarts; Maroeska M Rovers; Erwin L van der Veen; Anne G M Schilder; Geert J M van der Heijden; Wilko Grolman Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Roelof J Horn; Jan Willem C Gratama; Hester J van der Zaag-Loonen; Kitty E Droogh-de Greve; Peter-Paul G van Benthem Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: M Cavaliere; Antonella Miriam Di Lullo; E Cantone; G Scala; A Elefante; C Russo; L Brunetti; G Motta; M Iengo Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 2.503