4.5 Article

Dynamic enhancement features of cavernous sinus cavernous hemangiomas on conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 577-581

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0845

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The reported MR imaging characteristics of cavernous sinus cavernous hemangiomas (CSCHs) in the literature are nonspecific. The purpose of our study was to explore dynamic, enhancement features of CSCHs on conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging and to correlate these features with histopathologic subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients 8 male and 13 female; age range, 13-63 years; average age, 42.6 years) with surgically confirmed CSCHs were retrospectively investigated. Preoperative MR study was performed in all cases, consisting of T1-weighted axial imaging, T2-weighted axial imaging, T1-weighted sagittal imaging, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted axial, sagittal, and coronal images. RESULTS: There were 4.8% (1/21) that showed homogeneous enhancement on all 3 contrast-enhanced sequences, whereas 95.2% (20/21) demonstrated heterogeneous enhancement on the first contrast-enhanced sequence. Among the 20 lesions, on subsequent contrast-enhanced sequences, 55.0% (11/20) showed homogeneous enhancement, whereas 35.0% (7/20) of lesions showed progressive contrast filling in. The remaining 10% (2/20) exhibited no apparent enhancement changes. The 95.2% (20/21) of lesions with heterogeneous enhancement on the first contrast-enhanced sequence correlated with type B or type C pathologic findings, whereas 4.8% (1/21) with homogeneous enhancement correlated with type A pathologic findings. Among the 20 type B or type C lesions, 80% (16/20) achieved total or near-total resection. CONCLUSION: Progressive contrast filling in in the tumors on conventional contrast-enhanced MR images can aid in differentiating between cavernous sinus lesions and suggest the diagnosis of cavernous hemangiomas.

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

4.5
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