Imaging of Skull Base and Orbital Invasion in Sinonasal Cancer: Correlation with Histopathology.
orbit
paranasal sinus neoplasm
radiology
skull base
surgery
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2021
01 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
09
07
2021
revised:
14
09
2021
accepted:
27
09
2021
entrez:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
14
10
2021
medline:
14
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pretreatment assessment of local extension in sinonasal cancer is essential for prognostic evaluation and surgical planning. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of two common imaging techniques (CT and MRI) for the diagnosis of skull base and orbital invasion by comparing imaging findings to histopathological data. This was a retrospective two-center study including patients with sinonasal cancer involving the skull base and/or the orbit operated on between 2000 and 2019. Patients were included only if pre-operative CT and/or MRI, operative and histopathologic reports were available. A double prospective blinded imaging review was conducted according to predefined radiological parameters. Radiologic tumor extension was compared to histopathological reports, which were considered the gold standard. The predictive positive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of skull base/orbital invasion was calculated for each parameter. A total of 176 patients were included. Ethmoidal intestinal-type adenocarcinoma was the most common type of cancer (41%). The PPV for major modification of the bony skull base was 78% on the CT scan, and 89% on MRI. MRI signs of dural invasion with the highest PPVs were: contact angle over 45° between tumor and dura (86%), irregular deformation of dura adjacent to tumor (87%) and nodular dural enhancement over 2 mm in thickness (87%). Signs of orbital invasion had low PPVs (<50%). This retrospective study provides objective data about the diagnostic value of pretreatment imaging in patients with sinonasal cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pretreatment assessment of local extension in sinonasal cancer is essential for prognostic evaluation and surgical planning. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of two common imaging techniques (CT and MRI) for the diagnosis of skull base and orbital invasion by comparing imaging findings to histopathological data.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective two-center study including patients with sinonasal cancer involving the skull base and/or the orbit operated on between 2000 and 2019. Patients were included only if pre-operative CT and/or MRI, operative and histopathologic reports were available. A double prospective blinded imaging review was conducted according to predefined radiological parameters. Radiologic tumor extension was compared to histopathological reports, which were considered the gold standard. The predictive positive value (PPV) for the diagnosis of skull base/orbital invasion was calculated for each parameter.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 176 patients were included. Ethmoidal intestinal-type adenocarcinoma was the most common type of cancer (41%). The PPV for major modification of the bony skull base was 78% on the CT scan, and 89% on MRI. MRI signs of dural invasion with the highest PPVs were: contact angle over 45° between tumor and dura (86%), irregular deformation of dura adjacent to tumor (87%) and nodular dural enhancement over 2 mm in thickness (87%). Signs of orbital invasion had low PPVs (<50%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This retrospective study provides objective data about the diagnostic value of pretreatment imaging in patients with sinonasal cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34638447
pii: cancers13194963
doi: 10.3390/cancers13194963
pmc: PMC8507735
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Craniofac Surg. 2013 Jul;24(4):1268-72
pubmed: 24015414
Rhinol Suppl. 2010 Jun 01;22:1-143
pubmed: 20502772
Radiology. 1993 Sep;188(3):747-9
pubmed: 8351343
Head Neck. 2008 Feb;30(2):242-50
pubmed: 18023029
Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010 Jan-Feb;24(1):60-5
pubmed: 20109329
Rhinology. 2011 Mar;49(1):74-9
pubmed: 21468378
Neurosurgery. 2018 Mar 1;82(3):255-267
pubmed: 29040722
Head Neck. 2005 Jul;27(7):575-84
pubmed: 15825201
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016 Dec;133(6):405-411
pubmed: 27386803
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1987 Sep-Oct;11(5):824-30
pubmed: 3655045
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2018 Oct;79(5):419-426
pubmed: 30210968
Acta Radiol. 2019 Mar;60(3):301-307
pubmed: 29804473
World Neurosurg. 2014 Dec;82(6 Suppl):S22-31
pubmed: 25496631
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2013 Mar;13(3):297-312
pubmed: 23477517
Head Neck. 2020 Aug;42(8):2002-2012
pubmed: 32124507
Br J Radiol. 1983 Jul;56(667):439-46
pubmed: 6860891
Am J Rhinol. 2006 Jul-Aug;20(4):371-4
pubmed: 16955762
Cancer. 2003 Sep 15;98(6):1179-87
pubmed: 12973841
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009 Dec;135(12):1219-24
pubmed: 20026819
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1998 Jan-Feb;22(1):41-51
pubmed: 9745941
Neurosurgery. 1994 Sep;35(3):370-7;discussion 377
pubmed: 7800128
Head Neck. 2016 Nov;38(11):1650-1656
pubmed: 27131342
J Laryngol Otol. 2000 Jul;114(7):557-62
pubmed: 10992946
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2012 Jul-Aug;2(4):336-41
pubmed: 22337501
Clin Otolaryngol. 2017 Oct;42(5):988-993
pubmed: 28063243
Head Neck. 2000 Aug;22(5):456-62
pubmed: 10897104
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2002 Nov;259(10):535-9
pubmed: 12434188
Am J Rhinol. 2008 May-Jun;22(3):308-16
pubmed: 18588765
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1989 Aug;115(8):977-80
pubmed: 2751858
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 Nov-Dec;17(10):1937-45
pubmed: 8933883
Laryngoscope. 1992 Jun;102(6):623-9
pubmed: 1602910
Rhinology. 2009 Mar;47(1):3-9
pubmed: 19382487
Radiol Clin North Am. 1998 Nov;36(6):1201-13, xi
pubmed: 9884697
Oral Oncol. 2021 Mar;114:105185
pubmed: 33517131
Head Neck. 1998 May;20(3):193-6
pubmed: 9570623
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1984 Oct;8(5):944-52
pubmed: 6470264