AJDRAJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

Publication Preview: Published February 4, 2009

American Journal of Neuroradiology 2009;30:985.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Online Figure
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ajnr.A1472v1
30/5/985    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ozgen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Dolgun, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ozgen, B.
Right arrow Articles by Dolgun, A.

HEAD & NECK

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Constructive Interference in Steady State Sequence Alone for Follow-Up Imaging of Vestibular Schwannomas

B. Ozgen, B. Oguz and A. Dolgun

From the Departments of Radiology (B.Ozgen, B.Oguz) and Biostatistics (A.D.), Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

Please address correspondence to Burce Ozgen, MD, Department of Radiology, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Medicine, Sihhiye, Ankara 06100, Turkey; e-mail: burce{at}hacettepe.edu.tr

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Vestibular schwannoma (VS) is a benign, slow-growing tumor, and radiologic monitoring is an acceptable alternative to surgery in small lesions and in elderly patients. MR imaging with contrast is the study of choice in the follow-up of these lesions. However, gadolinium-based contrast agents have side effects and should be used only when definitely indicated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the constructive interference in steady state (CISS) sequence used without postcontrast sequences for the follow-up imaging of VS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging examinations of 18 patients were retrospectively evaluated by 2 radiologists. VS masses were measured on both CISS and the postcontrast images by each observer. For each patient, the masses were also assessed qualitatively for possible progression between every consecutive study.

RESULTS: Fifty MR images of 18 patients were evaluated. Patients had 1–5 follow-up studies. The mean time interval between the consecutive studies was 23 months (6–55 months). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the CISS sequence for the detection of progression were 100%. There was good interobserver and intraobserver (CISS and postcontrast) correlation. The CISS sequence had, however, limited sensitivity for the detection of changes in the internal architecture.

CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast CISS-only technique may be a viable alternative to routine contrast-enhanced sequences for the follow-up of overall lesion size in patients with VS; however, treatment-related changes internal to the tumor are less noticeable using the CISS sequence.