4.2 Article

Benign and malignant skull-involved lesions: discriminative value of conventional CT and MRI combined with diffusion-weighted MRI

Journal

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
Volume 60, Issue 7, Pages 880-886

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0284185118773541

Keywords

Skull-involved lesion; neoplasm; magnetic resonance imaging; diffusion-weighted imaging; computed tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Little is known about the value of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in distinguishing malignant from benign skull-involved lesions. Purpose To evaluate the discriminative value of DWI combined with conventional CT and MRI for differentiating between benign and malignant skull-involved lesions. Material and Methods CT and MRI findings of 58 patients with pathologically proven skull-involved lesions (43 benign and 15 malignant) were retrospectively reviewed. Conventional CT and MRI characteristics and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value of the two groups were evaluated and compared. Multivariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to assess the differential performance of each parameter separately and together. Results The presence of cortical defects or break-through and ill-defined margins were associated with malignant skull-involved lesions (both P < 0.05). Malignant skull-involved lesions demonstrated a significantly lower ADC (P = 0.016) than benign lesions. ROC curve analyses indicated that a combination of CT, MRI, and DWI with an ADC <= 0.703 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s showed optimal sensitivity, while DWI along showed optimal specificity of 88.4% in differentiating between benign and malignant skull-involved lesions. Conclusion The combination of CT, MRI, and DWI can help to differentiate malignant from benign skull-involved lesions. CT + MRI + DWI offers optimal sensitivity, while DWI offers optimal specificity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available