Algin O, Aydın H, Ozmen E, Ocakoglu G, Bercin S, Porter D A, Kutluhan A
Department of Radiology, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, 06050 Ankara, Turkey; National MR Research Center (UMRAM), Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Radiology, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Hospital, Ankara Turkey.
J Neuroradiol. 2017 Oct;44(6):388-394. doi: 10.1016/j.neurad.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 Jun 30.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of RS-EPI-DWI in the detection of cholesteatoma and to compare with single-shot echo-planar DWI (SS-EPI-DWI). Diffusion-weighted and apparent diffusion-coefficient (ADC) images were obtained using RS-EPI and SS-EPI techniques in 30 patients. Presence of cholesteatoma (3 point scale), amount of artefacts (4 point scale), visibility (4 point scale), and ADC values of the lesions were assessed. The results of both techniques were compared with each other and gold-standard (GS) test results. Lesion visibility and presence of artefact scores of RS-EPI-DWI group were significantly different from those of the SS-EPI group. RS-EPI-DWI images had fewer artefacts and higher visibility scores. The sensitivity, specificity, negative/positive-predictive, and overall-agreement values of RS-EPI-DWI technique were 100%, 78%, 100%, 74%, and 87%; respectively. These values for SS-EPI-DWI technique were 91%, 60%, 88%, 67%, and 75%; respectively. Also, these values were higher on axial plane than coronal plane images for ADC measurements. Based on gold-standard test findings, agreement values were good (κ=0.74) for RS-EPI-DWI and moderate for SS-EP-DWI (κ=0.50) techniques (P<0.001 for both). The RS-EPI-DWI technique allows a higher spatial-resolution and this technique is less susceptible to artefacts when compared with SS-EPI technique.
本研究的目的是评估RS-EPI-DWI在胆脂瘤检测中的影响，并与单次激发回波平面扩散加权成像（SS-EPI-DWI）进行比较。使用RS-EPI和SS-EPI技术对30例患者进行了扩散加权成像和表观扩散系数（ADC）成像。评估了胆脂瘤的存在情况（3分制）、伪影量（4分制）、可见性（4分制）以及病变的ADC值。将两种技术的结果相互比较，并与金标准（GS）测试结果进行比较。RS-EPI-DWI组的病变可见性和伪影评分与SS-EPI组显著不同。RS-EPI-DWI图像的伪影较少，可见性评分较高。RS-EPI-DWI技术的敏感性、特异性、阴性/阳性预测值和总体一致性值分别为100%、78%、100%、74%和87%；SS-EPI-DWI技术的这些值分别为91%、60%、88%、67%和75%。此外，在轴位平面上进行ADC测量时，这些值高于冠状位平面图像。基于金标准测试结果，RS-EPI-DWI技术的一致性值良好（κ=0.74），SS-EP-DWI技术的一致性值中等（κ=0.50）（两者P<0.001）。与SS-EPI技术相比，RS-EPI-DWI技术具有更高的空间分辨率，且该技术不易受伪影影响。
