» Articles » PMID: 29743732

Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Dynamic Contrast Enhancement and Diffusion-weighted Imaging to Identify Malignant Cervical Lymph Nodes

Overview
Journal Radiol Bras
Specialty Radiology
Date 2018 May 11
PMID 29743732
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To examine the potential of two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques-dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-for the detection of malignant cervical lymph nodes.

Materials And Methods: Using DCE and DWI, we evaluated 33 cervical lymph nodes. For the DCE technique, the maximum relative enhancement, relative enhancement, time to peak enhancement, wash-in rate, wash-out rate, brevity of enhancement, and area under the curve were calculated from a semi-quantitative analysis. For the DWI technique, apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) were acquired in the region of interest of each lymph node. Cystic or necrotic parts were excluded. All patients underwent neck dissection or node biopsy. Imaging results were correlated with the histopathological findings. None of the patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment before neck dissection.

Results: Relative enhancement, maximum relative enhancement, and the wash-in rate were significantly higher in malignant lymph nodes than in benign lymph nodes ( < 0.009; < 0.05; and < 0.03, respectively). The time to peak enhancement was significantly shorter in the malignant lymph nodes ( < 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, the variables identified as being the most capable of distinguishing between benign and malignant lymph nodes were time to peak enhancement (sensitivity, 73.7%; specificity, 69.2%) and relative enhancement (sensitivity, 89.2%; specificity, 69.2%).

Conclusion: Although DCE was able to differentiate between benign and malignant lymph nodes, there is still no consensus regarding the use of a semi-quantitative analysis, which is difficult to apply in a clinical setting. Low ADCs can predict metastatic disease, although inflammatory processes might lead to false-positive results.

Citing Articles

Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with MRI for cervical hyperplastic, tuberculosis-infected, and metastatic lymph nodes.

Yu X, Zhang W, He N, Su D, Zhao Y Pak J Med Sci. 2023; 39(4):950-955.

PMID: 37492335 PMC: 10364260. DOI: 10.12669/pjms.39.4.7572.


Quantitative Analysis of DCE-MRI and RESOLVE-DWI for Differentiating Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma from Nasopharyngeal Lymphoid Hyperplasia.

Yu J, Zhang D, Huang X, Ma J, Yang C, Li X J Med Syst. 2020; 44(4):75.

PMID: 32103352 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-020-01549-y.


Differentiation of lymphomatous, metastatic, and non-malignant lymphadenopathy in the neck with quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Payabvash S, Brackett A, Forghani R, Malhotra A Neuroradiology. 2019; 61(8):897-910.

PMID: 31175398 DOI: 10.1007/s00234-019-02236-7.


Preoperative computed tomography evaluation of the paranasal sinuses: what should the physician know? - pictorial essay.

Ribeiro B, Muniz B, Marchiori E Radiol Bras. 2019; 52(2):117-122.

PMID: 31019342 PMC: 6472854. DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0082.


Changes in temporomandibular joint anatomy, changes in condylar translation, and their relationship with disc displacement: magnetic resonance imaging study.

Bedran L, Dos Santos A Radiol Bras. 2019; 52(2):85-91.

PMID: 31019336 PMC: 6472865. DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0020.


References
1.
Casselman J, De Foer B, De Bondt B . [Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the head and neck]. J Radiol. 2010; 91(3 Pt 2):369-74. DOI: 10.1016/s0221-0363(10)70052-4. View

2.
Fischbein N, Noworolski S, Henry R, Kaplan M, Dillon W, Nelson S . Assessment of metastatic cervical adenopathy using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003; 24(3):301-11. PMC: 7973604. View

3.
Ogassavara B, Tucunduva Neto R, de Souza R, Tucunduva M . Ultrasound evaluation of the morphometric patterns of lymph nodes of the head and neck in young and middle-aged individuals. Radiol Bras. 2016; 49(4):225-228. PMC: 5073388. DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0002. View

4.
Curtin H, Ishwaran H, Mancuso A, Dalley R, Caudry D, McNeil B . Comparison of CT and MR imaging in staging of neck metastases. Radiology. 1998; 207(1):123-30. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530307. View

5.
Furukawa M, Parvathaneni U, Maravilla K, Richards T, Anzai Y . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR perfusion imaging of head and neck tumors at 3 Tesla. Head Neck. 2012; 35(7):923-9. DOI: 10.1002/hed.23051. View