Optimal Duration of MRI Follow-up to Safely Identify Middle Ear Residual Cholesteatoma.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
received:
11
06
2020
accepted:
15
02
2021
pubmed:
17
4
2021
medline:
13
10
2021
entrez:
16
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous studies have demonstrated the usefulness of non-EPI DWI for detection of residual cholesteatoma. However, limited data are available to determine the suitable duration of imaging follow-up after a first MR imaging with normal findings has been obtained. The present study aimed to determine the optimal duration of non-EPI DWI follow-up for residual cholesteatoma. A retrospective, monocentric study was performed between 2013 and 2019 and included all participants followed up after canal wall up tympanoplasty with at least 2 non-EPI DWI examinations performed on the same 1.5T MR imaging scanner. MR images were reviewed independently by 2 radiologists. Sensitivity and specificity values were calculated as a function of time after the operation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed to determine the optimal follow-up duration. We analyzed 47 MRIs from 17 participants. At the end of the individual follow-up period, a residual cholesteatoma had been found in 41.1% of cases. The follow-up duration ranged from 20 to 198 months (mean, 65.9 [SD, 43.9] months). Participants underwent between 2 and 5 non-EPI DWI examinations. Analyses of the receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that the optimal diagnostic value of non-EPI DWI occurred 56 months after the operation when the first MR imaging performed a mean of 17.3 (SD, 6.8) months after the operation had normal findings (sensitivity = 0.71; specificity = 0.7, Youden index = 0.43). Repeat non-EPI DWI is required to detect slow-growing middle ear residual cholesteatomas. We, therefore, recommend performing non-EPI DWI for at least the first 5 years after the initial operation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Previous studies have demonstrated the usefulness of non-EPI DWI for detection of residual cholesteatoma. However, limited data are available to determine the suitable duration of imaging follow-up after a first MR imaging with normal findings has been obtained. The present study aimed to determine the optimal duration of non-EPI DWI follow-up for residual cholesteatoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A retrospective, monocentric study was performed between 2013 and 2019 and included all participants followed up after canal wall up tympanoplasty with at least 2 non-EPI DWI examinations performed on the same 1.5T MR imaging scanner. MR images were reviewed independently by 2 radiologists. Sensitivity and specificity values were calculated as a function of time after the operation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed to determine the optimal follow-up duration.
RESULTS
We analyzed 47 MRIs from 17 participants. At the end of the individual follow-up period, a residual cholesteatoma had been found in 41.1% of cases. The follow-up duration ranged from 20 to 198 months (mean, 65.9 [SD, 43.9] months). Participants underwent between 2 and 5 non-EPI DWI examinations. Analyses of the receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that the optimal diagnostic value of non-EPI DWI occurred 56 months after the operation when the first MR imaging performed a mean of 17.3 (SD, 6.8) months after the operation had normal findings (sensitivity = 0.71; specificity = 0.7, Youden index = 0.43).
CONCLUSIONS
Repeat non-EPI DWI is required to detect slow-growing middle ear residual cholesteatomas. We, therefore, recommend performing non-EPI DWI for at least the first 5 years after the initial operation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33858822
pii: ajnr.A7116
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7116
pmc: PMC8324276
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1313-1319Informations de copyright
© 2021 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Aug;79(8):1268-74
pubmed: 26071017
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019 Mar;118:90-96
pubmed: 30599286
Otol Neurotol. 2017 Apr;38(4):521-528
pubmed: 28195998
J Neuroradiol. 2015 Jul;42(4):193-201
pubmed: 25015879
J Int Adv Otol. 2017 Apr;13(1):1-8
pubmed: 28059056
Clin Otolaryngol. 2011 Aug;36(4):306-12
pubmed: 21564557
Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1976;1(2):169-82
pubmed: 1031660
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Apr;37(4):356-61
pubmed: 26905824
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Aug;40(7):911-919
pubmed: 31219966
Skull Base. 2008 Sep;18(5):353-9
pubmed: 19240835
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2014 Jun;131(3):153-8
pubmed: 24709404
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2012 Jun;129(3):136-40
pubmed: 21955464
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Aug;29(7):1363-8
pubmed: 18417598
Radiology. 2013 Nov;269(2):504-10
pubmed: 23801772
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Jun;40(5):638-644
pubmed: 31083089
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Jun;29(4):513-7
pubmed: 18520587
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Nov 7;48(1):58
pubmed: 31699154
J Neuroradiol. 2020 Nov;47(6):433-440
pubmed: 30951771