Cargando…

Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics

This study compares the diagnostic performance and image quality of single-shot turbo spin-echo DWI (tseDWI), standard readout-segmented DWI (rsDWI), and a modified rsDWI version (topupDWI) for cholesteatoma diagnostics. Thirty-four patients with newly suspected unilateral cholesteatoma were examine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wiesmueller, Marco, Wuest, Wolfgang, Mennecke, Angelika, May, Matthias Stefan, Heiss, Rafael, Fuehres, Tobit, Janka, Rolf, Uder, Michael, Doerfler, Arnd, Laun, Frederik Bernd
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37046460
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071242
_version_ 1785023628080840704
author Wiesmueller, Marco
Wuest, Wolfgang
Mennecke, Angelika
May, Matthias Stefan
Heiss, Rafael
Fuehres, Tobit
Janka, Rolf
Uder, Michael
Doerfler, Arnd
Laun, Frederik Bernd
author_facet Wiesmueller, Marco
Wuest, Wolfgang
Mennecke, Angelika
May, Matthias Stefan
Heiss, Rafael
Fuehres, Tobit
Janka, Rolf
Uder, Michael
Doerfler, Arnd
Laun, Frederik Bernd
author_sort Wiesmueller, Marco
collection PubMed
description This study compares the diagnostic performance and image quality of single-shot turbo spin-echo DWI (tseDWI), standard readout-segmented DWI (rsDWI), and a modified rsDWI version (topupDWI) for cholesteatoma diagnostics. Thirty-four patients with newly suspected unilateral cholesteatoma were examined on a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating and comparing the sensitivity and specificity using histopathological results as the standard of reference. Image quality was independently reviewed by two readers using a 5-point Likert scale evaluating image distortions, susceptibility artifacts, image resolution, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence. Twenty-five cholesteatomas were histologically confirmed after surgery and originated in the study group. TseDWI showed the highest sensitivity with 96% (95% confidence interval (CI): 88–100%), followed by topupDWI with 92% (95% CI: 81–100%) for both readers. The sensitivity for rsDWI was 76% (95% CI: 59–93%) for reader 1 and 84% (95% CI: 70–98%) for reader 2, respectively. Both tseDWI and topupDWI revealed a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 66–100%) and rsDWI of 89% (95% CI: 52–100%). Both tseDWI and topupDWI showed fewer image distortions and susceptibility artifacts compared to rsDWI. Image resolution was consistently rated best for topupDWI, followed by rsDWI, which both outperformed tseDWI. TopupDWI and tseDWI showed comparable results for lesions’ conspicuity and diagnostic confidence, both outperforming rsDWI. Modified readout-segmented DWI using the topup-correction method is preferable to standard rsDWI and may be regarded as an accurate alternative to single-shot turbo spin-echo DWI in cholesteatoma diagnostics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10093611
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100936112023-04-13 Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics Wiesmueller, Marco Wuest, Wolfgang Mennecke, Angelika May, Matthias Stefan Heiss, Rafael Fuehres, Tobit Janka, Rolf Uder, Michael Doerfler, Arnd Laun, Frederik Bernd Diagnostics (Basel) Article This study compares the diagnostic performance and image quality of single-shot turbo spin-echo DWI (tseDWI), standard readout-segmented DWI (rsDWI), and a modified rsDWI version (topupDWI) for cholesteatoma diagnostics. Thirty-four patients with newly suspected unilateral cholesteatoma were examined on a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner. Diagnostic performance was evaluated by calculating and comparing the sensitivity and specificity using histopathological results as the standard of reference. Image quality was independently reviewed by two readers using a 5-point Likert scale evaluating image distortions, susceptibility artifacts, image resolution, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence. Twenty-five cholesteatomas were histologically confirmed after surgery and originated in the study group. TseDWI showed the highest sensitivity with 96% (95% confidence interval (CI): 88–100%), followed by topupDWI with 92% (95% CI: 81–100%) for both readers. The sensitivity for rsDWI was 76% (95% CI: 59–93%) for reader 1 and 84% (95% CI: 70–98%) for reader 2, respectively. Both tseDWI and topupDWI revealed a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 66–100%) and rsDWI of 89% (95% CI: 52–100%). Both tseDWI and topupDWI showed fewer image distortions and susceptibility artifacts compared to rsDWI. Image resolution was consistently rated best for topupDWI, followed by rsDWI, which both outperformed tseDWI. TopupDWI and tseDWI showed comparable results for lesions’ conspicuity and diagnostic confidence, both outperforming rsDWI. Modified readout-segmented DWI using the topup-correction method is preferable to standard rsDWI and may be regarded as an accurate alternative to single-shot turbo spin-echo DWI in cholesteatoma diagnostics. MDPI 2023-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10093611/ /pubmed/37046460 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071242 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Wiesmueller, Marco
Wuest, Wolfgang
Mennecke, Angelika
May, Matthias Stefan
Heiss, Rafael
Fuehres, Tobit
Janka, Rolf
Uder, Michael
Doerfler, Arnd
Laun, Frederik Bernd
Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics
title Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics
title_full Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics
title_fullStr Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics
title_short Comparison of Diagnostic Performance and Image Quality between Topup-Corrected and Standard Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Cholesteatoma Diagnostics
title_sort comparison of diagnostic performance and image quality between topup-corrected and standard readout-segmented echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging for cholesteatoma diagnostics
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37046460
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071242
work_keys_str_mv AT wiesmuellermarco comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT wuestwolfgang comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT menneckeangelika comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT maymatthiasstefan comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT heissrafael comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT fuehrestobit comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT jankarolf comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT udermichael comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT doerflerarnd comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics
AT launfrederikbernd comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceandimagequalitybetweentopupcorrectedandstandardreadoutsegmentedechoplanardiffusionweightedimagingforcholesteatomadiagnostics