HEAD AND NECK TUMORS, MRI VERSUS CT - A TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT PILOT-STUDY

被引:11
作者
VANDIJKE, CF
VANWAES, PFGM
机构
[1] Department of Radiology, University Hospital Utrecht, Utrecht
关键词
MAGNETIC RESONANCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEAD AND NECK TUMOR; MRI; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;
D O I
10.1016/0720-048X(92)90094-P
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Thirty-three patients with head and neck tumors were evaluated with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Although CT and MRI of the head and neck are well-established clinical methods, reports assessing the relative value of both modalities are not available. Technology assessment was based on the determination of how often and to what extent MRI versus CT provided valuable diagnostic information, and whether this information influenced patient management. The diagnostic values were classified in five groups, ranging from confusing to unique information. Therapeutic values were classified in five groups ranging from disadvantageous therapy, to a favorable change of treatment. All benign tumors found in 14 patients showed positive diagnostic and therapeutic results with MRI (100%). In 19 cases of malignancy a positive yield of 84% was found in the diagnostic and therapeutic results. Two of six squamous cell carcinoma and one of two rhadbomyosarcomas had a negative therapeutic value. As MRI played a positive role in therapeutic management in 91% of the examinations, it is the method of choice for therapy planning and follow-up of head and neck neoplasm. However, when skull base infiltration is suspected, CT is preferred. MRI provides valuable information to support diagnosis of the disease.
引用
收藏
页码:235 / 239
页数:5
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Spiessl, Beahrs, Hermanek, Hutter, Scheibe, Sobin, Wagner, Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, TNM Atlas, (1990)
  • [2] Mancuso, Harnsberger, Muraki, Stevens, Computed tomography of cervical and retropharyngeal lymphnodes: normal anatomy, variants of nomal and applications of staging head and neck cancer, Radiology, 148, pp. 709-714, (1983)
  • [3] Fineberg, Wittenberg, Ferrucci, Mueller, Simeone, Goldman, The clinical value of body computed tomography over time and technologic change, AJR, 141, pp. 1067-1070, (1983)
  • [4] Von Furst, Zamboglou, Greven, Kahn, Modder, Kontrastmitteleinsatz in der kernspin Tomographie von Kopfund Hals Tumoren, Fortschr Rontgenstr, 149, 5, pp. 485-489, (1988)
  • [5] Vogl, Bruning, Grevers, Mees, Bauer, Lissner, MRI of the oropharynx and tongue: comparison of plain and Gd-DTPA studies, J Comput Assist Tomogr, 12, pp. 427-433, (1988)
  • [6] Som, Shapiro, Biller, Sasaki, Lawson, Sinonasal tumors and inflammatory tissues: differentation with MR Imaging, Radiology, 167, pp. 803-808, (1988)
  • [7] Mafee, Campos, Raju, Samett, Mohamadi, Sadighi, Heffez, Friedman, Chow, Head and neck: high field magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography, Otolaryngol Clin North Am, 21, pp. 513-546, (1988)
  • [8] Nitsche, Iro, Pra¨operative Diagnostik von Halstumoren mit Magnetic Resonance Imaging, HNO, 37, pp. 373-378, (1989)
  • [9] Byrne, Spector, Garwin, Gado, Preoperative assessment of parotid masses: a comparative evaluation of radiologic techniques to histopathologic diagnosis, Laryngoscope, 99, pp. 284-392, (1989)
  • [10] Krubsack, Wilson, Lawson, Kneeland, Thorsen, Collier, Hellman, Isitman, Prospective comparison of radionuclide, computed tomographic, sonographic, and magnetic resonance localisation of parathyroid tumors, Surgery, 106, pp. 639-646, (1989)