4.3 Article

Assessment of nasal and paranasal sinus masses by diffusion-weighted MR imaging

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 206-211

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurad.2009.06.001

关键词

Diffusion; Nasal; Tumor; Sinus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. - To assess nasal and paranasal sinus masses by diffusion-weighted echoplanar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients and methods. - This prospective study included 55 consecutive patients (34 males, 21 females; aged 14-64 years, mean 39 years) with nasal and paranasal sinus masses. All underwent diffusion-weighted MRI using single-shot echoplanar imaging (EPI) with a b factor of 0.500 and 1000s/mm(2). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were constructed, allowing ADC values of the mass to be calculated and correlated with histopathological. findings. Results. - The mean ADC value of nasal and paranasal. sinus malignant lesions (1.10 +/- 0.25 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) was significantly different (P = 0.001) from that of benign lesions (1.78 +/- 0.41 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). Also, there was a significant ADC difference between carcinoma and sarcoma (P = 0.01) as well as between well differentiated and poorly differentiated malignancies (P = 0.005). Using an ADC value of 1.53 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s as the threshold value for differentiating malignant from benign lesions, the best result obtained had an accuracy of 93%, sensitivity of 94%, specificity of 92%, a positive predictive value of 92% and negative predictive value of 94%. However, the use of 0.97 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s and 1.16 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s as threshold values to differentiate carcinomas from sarcomas and poorly differentiated malignancy, respectively, gave the best results. Conclusion. - The ADC value is a non-invasive imaging parameter that can be used to assess nasal and paranasal. sinus masses, as it can help in the differentiation of malignant tumors from benign Lesions, and in the characterization and grading of malignancies. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据