Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging compared to surgical exploration for anterior skull base and medial orbital wall infiltration in advanced sinonasal tumors.
CT
MRI
orbit
sinonasal
skull base
tumor
Journal
Head & neck
ISSN: 1097-0347
Titre abrégé: Head Neck
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8902541
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
25
07
2019
revised:
12
02
2020
accepted:
20
02
2020
pubmed:
4
3
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
4
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Knowledge of medial orbital wall (MOW) and anterior skull base (ASB) infiltration is of uttermost importance for staging and therapy planning of advanced sinonasal tumors. We assessed the diagnostic performance of preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for MOW and ASB infiltration compared to intraoperative exploration. Both CT and MRI yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for MOW infiltration (Reader 1: 83.6% CT; 89.0% MRI, Reader 2: 91.8% CT, 93.2% MRI) than for ASB infiltration (Reader 1: 82.2% CT, 82.2% MRI, Reader 2: 67.7% CT, 67.7% MRI). Both modalities were equal to the gold standard, except for ASB assessment by Reader 2 with MRI. A postoperative change of T classification is common (Reader 1: 28.8%, Reader 2: 31.5%). CT and MRI are accurate methods for the assessment of MOW infiltration. ASB assessment is challenging and false-positive and false-negative findings are common with both methods, emphasizing the need for intraoperative exploration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Knowledge of medial orbital wall (MOW) and anterior skull base (ASB) infiltration is of uttermost importance for staging and therapy planning of advanced sinonasal tumors.
METHODS
We assessed the diagnostic performance of preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for MOW and ASB infiltration compared to intraoperative exploration.
RESULTS
Both CT and MRI yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for MOW infiltration (Reader 1: 83.6% CT; 89.0% MRI, Reader 2: 91.8% CT, 93.2% MRI) than for ASB infiltration (Reader 1: 82.2% CT, 82.2% MRI, Reader 2: 67.7% CT, 67.7% MRI). Both modalities were equal to the gold standard, except for ASB assessment by Reader 2 with MRI. A postoperative change of T classification is common (Reader 1: 28.8%, Reader 2: 31.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
CT and MRI are accurate methods for the assessment of MOW infiltration. ASB assessment is challenging and false-positive and false-negative findings are common with both methods, emphasizing the need for intraoperative exploration.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2002-2012Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Madani G, Beale TJ, Lund VJ. Imaging of sinonasal tumors. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 2009;30(1):25-38.
Connor SE. The skull base in the evaluation of sinonasal disease: role of computed tomography and MR imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2015;25(4):619-651.
Kimura Y, Sumi M, Sakihama N, Tanaka F, Takahashi H, Nakamura T. MR imaging criteria for the prediction of extranodal spread of metastatic cancer in the neck. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(7):1355-1359.
Miracle AC, El-Sayed IH, Glastonbury CM. Diffusion weighted imaging of esthesioneuroblastoma: differentiation from other sinonasal masses. Head Neck. 2019;41(5):1161-1164.
Lund VJ, Howard DJ, Lloyd GA, Cheesman AD. Magnetic resonance imaging of paranasal sinus tumors for craniofacial resection. Head Neck. 1989;11(3):279-283.
Lloyd GA, Lund VJ, Phelps PD, Howard DJ. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of nose and paranasal sinus disease. Br J Radiol. 1987;60(718):957-968.
Hahnel S, Ertl-Wagner B, Tasman AJ, Forsting M, Jansen O. Relative value of MR imaging as compared with CT in the diagnosis of inflammatory paranasal sinus disease. Radiology. 1999;210(1):171-176.
Choi HY, Yoon DY, Kim ES, et al. Diagnostic performance of CT, MRI, and their combined use for the assessment of the direct cranial or intracranial extension of malignant head and neck tumors. Acta Radiol. 2019;60(3):301-307.
Lund VJ, Howard DJ, Wei WI, Cheesman AD. Craniofacial resection for tumors of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses-a 17-year experience. Head Neck. 1998;20(2):97-105.
Meccariello G, Deganello A, Choussy O, et al. Endoscopic nasal versus open approach for the management of sinonasal adenocarcinoma: a pooled-analysis of 1826 patients. Head Neck. 2016;38(Suppl 1):E2267-E2274.
Camp S, Van Gerven L, Poorten VV, et al. Long-term follow-up of 123 patients with adenocarcinoma of the sinonasal tract treated with endoscopic resection and postoperative radiation therapy. Head Neck. 2016;38(2):294-300.
Eisen MD, Yousem DM, Montone KT, et al. Use of preoperative MR to predict dural, perineural, and venous sinus invasion of skull base tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996;17(10):1937-1945.
Eisen MD, Yousem DM, Loevner LA, Thaler ER, Bilker WB, Goldberg AN. Preoperative imaging to predict orbital invasion by tumor. Head Neck. 2000;22(5):456-462.
Moiyadi AV, Pai P, Nair D, Pal P, Shetty P. Dural involvement in skull base tumors-accuracy of preoperative radiological evaluation and intraoperative assessment. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(2):526-530.
Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471-1474.
Simmen D, Schuknecht B. Computerized tomography of paranasal sinuses-a preoperative check list. Laryngorhinootologie. 1997;76(1):8-13.
Schuknecht B, Simmen D. State of the Art. Diagnostic imaging of paranasal sinus diseases. Laryngorhinootologie. 2002;81(2):126-146.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
Imola MJ, Schramm VL Jr. Orbital preservation in surgical management of sinonasal malignancy. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(8 Pt 1):1357-1365.
Turri-Zanoni M, Lambertoni A, Margherini S, et al. Multidisciplinary treatment algorithm for the management of sinonasal cancers with orbital invasion: a retrospective study. Head Neck. 2019;41(8):2777-2788.
Nicolai P, Battaglia P, Bignami M, et al. Endoscopic surgery for malignant tumors of the sinonasal tract and adjacent skull base: a 10-year experience. Am J Rhinol. 2008;22(3):308-316.
Hanna E, DeMonte F, Ibrahim S, Roberts D, Levine N, Kupferman M. Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancers with and without craniotomy: oncologic results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135(12):1219-1224.
Nicolai P, Castelnuovo P, Lombardi D, et al. Role of endoscopic surgery in the management of selected malignant epithelial neoplasms of the naso-ethmoidal complex. Head Neck. 2007;29(12):1075-1082.
Lisan Q, Kolb F, Temam S, Tao Y, Janot F, Moya-Plana A. Management of orbital invasion in sinonasal malignancies. Head Neck. 2016;38(11):1650-1656.
Zwagerman NT, Zenonos G, Lieber S, et al. Endoscopic transnasal skull base surgery: pushing the boundaries. J Neurooncol. 2016;130(2):319-330.
Lund V, Howard DJ, Wei WI. Endoscopic resection of malignant tumors of the nose and sinuses. Am J Rhinol. 2007;21(1):89-94.
Lepera D, Leone F, Volpi L, et al. Endoscopic endonasal approach for sinonasal and anterior skull base malignancies in the elderly. Head Neck. 2018;40(5):917-926.
Oker N, Verillaud B, Wassef M, et al. Ethmoidal adenocarcinoma treated by exclusive endoscopic approach: focus on learning curve and modification of management. Head Neck. 2018;40(1):126-136.
McIntyre JB, Perez C, Penta M, Tong L, Truelson J, Batra PS. Patterns of dural involvement in sinonasal tumors: prospective correlation of magnetic resonance imaging and histopathologic findings. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2012;2(4):336-341.