» Articles » PMID: 2170860

CT and MR Assessment of Tumors of the Nose and Paranasal Sinuses, the Nasopharynx and the Parapharyngeal Space Using ROC Methodology

Overview
Journal Neuroradiology
Specialties Neurology
Radiology
Date 1990 Jan 1
PMID 2170860
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Neoplastic disease of the nose and paranasal sinuses, the nasopharynx and the parapharyngeal space requires thorough assessment of location and extension in order to plan appropriate treatment. This study evaluates computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the workup of malignant and non-malignant tumors of the nose and paranasal sinuses, the nasopharynx and the parapharyngeal space in 76 patients. An attempt is made to characterize histopathology on magnetic resonance images by analyzing the signal intensities on T1- and T2-weighted images relative to muscle and brain tissue. The test performance of computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of tumor extension are compared with receiver operating characteristic methodology. Although no definitive conclusions can be made as to the histopathology on the basis of the signal intensities on magnetic resonance imaging, some tumors show characteristic images. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of the performance of computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of extension of neoplastic disease of the nose and paranasal sinuses, the nasopharynx and the parapharyngeal space, demonstrates no statistically significant difference in overall test performance. However, in evaluating regions involving predominantly soft tissue structures and comparatively large bony structures magnetic resonance imaging is superior to computer tomography, whereas in evaluating regions involving thin bony structures, computer tomography performs better than magnetic resonance imaging.

Citing Articles

Clinicopathologic study of parapharyngeal tumors.

Gangopadhyay M, Bandopadhyay A, Sinha S, Chakroborty S J Cytol. 2012; 29(1):26-9.

PMID: 22438613 PMC: 3307447. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9371.93216.

References
1.
Centor R, Schwartz J . An evaluation of methods for estimating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Med Decis Making. 1985; 5(2):149-56. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8500500204. View

2.
Hanley J, McNeil B . A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983; 148(3):839-43. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708. View

3.
Hanley J . Alternative approaches to receiver operating characteristic analyses. Radiology. 1988; 168(2):568-70. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393683. View

4.
Hanley J, McNeil B . The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982; 143(1):29-36. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747. View

5.
Begg C, McNeil B . Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology. 1988; 167(2):565-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.167.2.3357976. View