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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |