TY - JOUR
T1 - Detection of middle ear cholesteatoma by diffusion-weighted MR imaging
T2 - Multishot echo-planar imaging compared with single-shot echo-planar imaging
AU - Yamashita, K.
AU - Yoshiura, Takashi
AU - Hiwatashi, A.
AU - Kamano, H.
AU - Dashjamts, T.
AU - Shibata, S.
AU - Tamae, A.
AU - Honda, H.
PY - 2011/11
Y1 - 2011/11
N2 - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous reports have shown that DWI is useful in detecting cholesteatoma. SS-EPI is the most widely used DWI technique. However, SS-EPI may have susceptibility artifacts due to field inhomogeneity in the imaging of the temporal bone region. Our purpose was to prospectively evaluate the advantage of MS-EPI for the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma by comparing it with SS-EPI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 29 patients with preoperatively suspected acquired cholesteatoma. Each patient underwent an MR imaging examination including both SS-EPI and MS-EPI by using a 1.5T MR imaging scanner. Images of the 29 patients (58 temporal bones including 30 with and 28 without cholesteatoma) were reviewed by 2 independent neuroradiologists. The confidence level for the presence of cholesteatoma was graded on a scale of 0-2 (0 = none, 1 = equivocal, 2 = definite). Interobserver agreement as well as sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were assessed for the 2 readers. RESULTS: Excellent interobserver agreement was shown for both MS-EPI (κ = 0.856) and SS-EPI (κ = 0.820). MS-EPI was associated with higher sensitivity (76.7%) and accuracy (87.9%) than SS-EPI (sensitivity = 50.0%, accuracy = 74.1%) (P < .05), while both methods showed 100% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SS-EPI, MS-EPI improves the accuracy of the diagnosis of acquired middle ear cholesteatomas.
AB - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous reports have shown that DWI is useful in detecting cholesteatoma. SS-EPI is the most widely used DWI technique. However, SS-EPI may have susceptibility artifacts due to field inhomogeneity in the imaging of the temporal bone region. Our purpose was to prospectively evaluate the advantage of MS-EPI for the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma by comparing it with SS-EPI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 29 patients with preoperatively suspected acquired cholesteatoma. Each patient underwent an MR imaging examination including both SS-EPI and MS-EPI by using a 1.5T MR imaging scanner. Images of the 29 patients (58 temporal bones including 30 with and 28 without cholesteatoma) were reviewed by 2 independent neuroradiologists. The confidence level for the presence of cholesteatoma was graded on a scale of 0-2 (0 = none, 1 = equivocal, 2 = definite). Interobserver agreement as well as sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were assessed for the 2 readers. RESULTS: Excellent interobserver agreement was shown for both MS-EPI (κ = 0.856) and SS-EPI (κ = 0.820). MS-EPI was associated with higher sensitivity (76.7%) and accuracy (87.9%) than SS-EPI (sensitivity = 50.0%, accuracy = 74.1%) (P < .05), while both methods showed 100% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SS-EPI, MS-EPI improves the accuracy of the diagnosis of acquired middle ear cholesteatomas.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81555226589&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81555226589&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3174/ajnr.A2651
DO - 10.3174/ajnr.A2651
M3 - Article
C2 - 21778245
AN - SCOPUS:81555226589
SN - 0195-6108
VL - 32
SP - 1915
EP - 1918
JO - American Journal of Neuroradiology
JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology
IS - 10
ER -