4.4 Article

MRI screening for acoustic neuroma: a comparison of fast spin echo and contrast enhanced imaging in 1233 patients

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 867, 页码 242-247

出版社

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.73.867.10817038

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gadolinium enhanced MRI is the gold standard investigation for the detection of acoustic neuroma. Non-contrast MRI sequences have been suggested as an alternative for screening examinations. In order to determine the utility of fast spin echo imaging, both gadolinium enhanced T-1 weighted images and fast spin echo T-2 weighted images were acquired in 1233 consecutive patients referred for exclusion of acoustic neuroma. Two radiologists independently recorded their findings. Fast spin echo T-2 weighted images were evaluated with respect to the visibility of nerves within the internal auditory canals and allocated a confidence score for the presence or absence of acoustic neuroma. 33 acoustic neuromas were identified. Only 56% were confidently identified on fast spin echo T-2 weighted images alone; gadolinium enhanced T-1 weighted images were required to confirm the diagnosis in 44% of the cases, including 9 of the 10 intracanalicular tumours. However, when identification of two normal intracanalicular nerves is employed as the criterion of normality, the single fast spin echo T-2 weighted sequence excluded acoustic neuroma in 59% of this screened population. It is concluded that an imaging strategy intended to identify small intracanalicular acoustic neuromas cannot rely on fast spill echo T-2 weighted imaging alone. Gadolinium enhanced T-1 weighted imaging could be restricted to patients where fast spin echo images do not exclude acoustic neuroma but this strategy requires continuous supervision by an experienced radiologist. In most practices the screening examination should continue to include a gadolinium enhanced sequence in order to optimize the detection of small acoustic neuromas.

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

4.4
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