These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of sporadic intracranial cavernous malformations for detecting associated developmental venous anomalies: added diagnostic value of C-arm contrast-enhanced cone-beam CT to routine contrast-enhanced MRI.
    Author: Kocak B, Kizilkilic O, Zeynalova A, Korkmazer B, Kocer N, Islak C.
    Journal: Eur Radiol; 2019 Feb; 29(2):783-791. PubMed ID: 30066249.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to investigate the added diagnostic value of C-arm contrast-enhanced cone-beam CT (CE-CBCT) to routine contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in detecting associated developmental venous anomalies (DVAs) in patients with sporadic intracranial cavernous malformations (ICMs). METHODS: Fifty-six patients (53 with single and three with double ICMs) met the inclusion criteria. All patients had routine CE-MRI scans performed at 1.5 Tesla. The imaging studies (CE-MRI and CE-CBCT) were retrospectively and independently reviewed by two observers, with consensus by a third. Group difference, intra- and interobserver agreement, and diagnostic performance of the modalities in detecting associated DVAs were calculated. Reference standard was CE-MRI. RESULTS: On CE-MRI and CE-CBCT, 37 (66%; of 56) and 47 patients (84%; of 56) had associated DVAs, respectively. In 10 patients (52.6%; of CE-MRI negatives [n=19]), CE-CBCT improved the diagnosis. Nine patients (16%; of 56) had no DVA on both imaging techniques. Difference in proportions of associated DVAs on CE-MRI and CE-CBCT was statistically significant, p < 0.05. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and area under the curve of CE-CBCT were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 90.5-100%), 47.3% (95% CI: 24.4-71.1%), 1.9 (95%CI: 1.240-2.911), 0.737 (95%CI: 0.602-0.845), respectively. Intraobserver agreement was excellent for CE-MRI, kappa (κ) coefficient = 0.960, and CE-CBCT, κ=0.931. Interobserver agreement was substantial for CE-MRI, κ=0.803, and excellent for CE-CBCT, κ=0.810. CONCLUSIONS: CE-CBCT is a useful imaging technique especially in patients with negative routine CE-MRI in terms of detecting associated DVAs. In nearly half of these particular patients, it reveals an associated DVA as a new diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Although it is known to be the gold standard, some of the DVAs associated with ICMs are underdiagnosed with CE-MRI. • In nearly half of the patients with negative routine CE-MRI, CE-CBCT reveals an associated DVA as a new diagnosis. • Intra- and interobserver agreement on CE-CBCT is excellent in terms of detecting associated DVAs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]