Detection of middle ear cholesteatoma by diffusion-weighted MR imaging: Multishot echo-planar imaging compared with single-shot echo-planar imaging

K. Yamashita, Takashi Yoshiura, A. Hiwatashi, H. Kamano, T. Dashjamts, S. Shibata, A. Tamae, H. Honda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1915-1918
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology
Volume32
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1 2011

Fingerprint

Middle Ear Cholesteatoma
Echo-Planar Imaging
Cholesteatoma
Temporal Bone
Temporal Lobe
Artifacts
Sensitivity and Specificity

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Detection of middle ear cholesteatoma by diffusion-weighted MR imaging : Multishot echo-planar imaging compared with single-shot echo-planar imaging. / Yamashita, K.; Yoshiura, Takashi; Hiwatashi, A.; Kamano, H.; Dashjamts, T.; Shibata, S.; Tamae, A.; Honda, H.

In: American Journal of Neuroradiology, Vol. 32, No. 10, 01.11.2011, p. 1915-1918.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yamashita, K. ; Yoshiura, Takashi ; Hiwatashi, A. ; Kamano, H. ; Dashjamts, T. ; Shibata, S. ; Tamae, A. ; Honda, H. / Detection of middle ear cholesteatoma by diffusion-weighted MR imaging : Multishot echo-planar imaging compared with single-shot echo-planar imaging. In: American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2011 ; Vol. 32, No. 10. pp. 1915-1918.
@article{bf37ea76efc54b12885b88694739a348,
title = "Detection of middle ear cholesteatoma by diffusion-weighted MR imaging: Multishot echo-planar imaging compared with single-shot echo-planar imaging",
abstract = "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.",
author = "K. Yamashita and Takashi Yoshiura and A. Hiwatashi and H. Kamano and T. Dashjamts and S. Shibata and A. Tamae and H. Honda",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3174/ajnr.A2651",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "1915--1918",
journal = "American Journal of Neuroradiology",
issn = "0195-6108",
publisher = "American Society of Neuroradiology",
number = "10",

}

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 - 2011/11/1

Y1 - 2011/11/1

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

VL - 32

SP - 1915

EP - 1918

JO - American Journal of Neuroradiology

JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology

SN - 0195-6108

IS - 10

ER -