Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 1387–1392 | Cite as

Is there a need for contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of the spine after inconspicuous short τ inversion recovery imaging?

  • Andreas H. MahnkenEmail author
  • Joachim E. Wildberger
  • Gerhard Adam
  • Sven Stanzel
  • Thomas Schmitz-Rode
  • Rolf W. Günther
  • Arno Buecker
Musculoskeletal

Abstract

To assess the use of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images in comparison with short τ inversion recovery (STIR) images for the detection of vertebral bone marrow abnormalities. A total of 201 vertebral magnetic resonance (MR) examinations were included in a prospective trial. Examinations were performed on a 0.5-T MR scanner. The examination protocol included STIR, T2-weighted turbo spin-echo and T1-weighted spin-echo images before and after administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of STIR images were calculated. In the case of abnormal STIR images the additional information from contrast-enhanced images was evaluated using Fisher’s exact test. The value of the combined evaluation of STIR and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images was compared with that of the combined assessment of T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. The PPV and the NPV of STIR images for detection of vertebral bone marrow abnormalities were 99.3 and 95.9%. In the case of normal STIR images no relevant additional information was found with contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images, while in the case of abnormal STIR images significant supplementary information was obtained. There was no difference in the diagnostic value when comparing combined assessment of STIR and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images with combined evaluation of T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Normal STIR images allow contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images for detection of bone marrow abnormalities to be omitted, whereas further imaging is needed in case of abnormal STIR images.

Keywords

Bone marrow Abnormalities Inversion recovery  Magnetic resonance Contrast enhancement 

References

  1. 1.
    Plenk H Jr, Hofmann S, Eschberger J et al (1997) Histomorphology and bone marrow morphometry of the bone marrow edema syndrome of the hip. Clin Orthop 334:73–84Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zanetti M, Bruder E, Romero J, Hodler J (2000) Bone marrow edema pattern in osteoarthritic knees: correlation between MR imaging and histologic findings. Radiology 21:835–840Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones KM, Unger EC, Granstrom P, Seeger JF, Carmody RF, Yoshino M (1992) Bone marrow imaging using STIR at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Magn Reson Imaging 10:169–176Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kavanagh E, Smith C, Eustace S (2003) Whole-body turbo STIR MR imaging: controversies and avenues for development. Eur Radiol 13:2196–2205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mentzel HJ, Kentouche K, Sauner D, Fleischmann C, Vogt S, Gottschild D, Zintl F, Kaiser WA (2004) Comparison of whole-body STIR-MRI and 99 mTc-methylene-diphosphonate scintigraphy in children with suspected multifocal bone lesions. Eur Radiol 14:2297–2302Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kellenberger CJ, Miller SF, Khan M, Gilday DL, Weitzman S, Babyn PS (2004) Initial experience with FSE STIR whole-body MR imaging for staging lymphoma in children. Eur Radiol 14:1829–1841Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanel D, Bittoun J, Tardivon A (1998) MRI of bone metastases. Eur Radiol 8:1345–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, Golli M, Dao TH, Jazaerli N, Anglade MC, Reyes F, Vasile N (1993) Detection of multiple myeloma involving the spine: efficacy of fat-suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 160:1049–1052Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertino RE, Porter BA, Stimac GK, Tepper SJ (1988) Imaging spinal osteomyelitis and epidural abscess with short TI inversion recovery (STIR). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 9:563–564Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baker LL, Goodman SB, Perkash I, Lane B, Enzmann DR (1990) Benign versus pathologic compression fractures of vertebral bodies: assessment with conventional spin-echo, chemical-shift, and STIR MR imaging. Radiology 174:495–502Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McNally EG, Wilson DJ, Ostlere SJ (2001) Limited magnetic resonance imaging in low back pain instead of plain radiographs: experience with first 1000 cases. Clin Radiol 56:922–925Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee VS, Flyer MA, Weinreb JC, Krinsky GA, Rofsky NM (1996) Image subtraction in gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 167:1427–1432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahnken AH, Bücker A, Adam G, Günther RW (2000) MRI of osteomyelitis: sensitivity and specificity of STIR sequences in comparison with contrast-enhanced T1 spin echo sequences. Fortschr Röntgenstr 172:1016–1019 [German]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yasumoto M, Nonomura Y, Yoshimura R, Haraguchi K, Ito S, Ohashi I, Shibuya H (2002) MR detection of iliac bone marrow involvement by malignant lymphoma with various MR sequences including diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging. Skeletal Radiol 31:263–269Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shariat Razavi I, Amezic V, Zucconi F, Cova MA, Pozzi Mucelli R (1997) Turbo STIR sequence: optimization and comparison with conventional STIR sequence in bone diseases. Radiol Med (Torino) 93:628–662 [Italian]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Breitenseher MJ, Metz VM, Gilula LA, Gaebler C, Kukla C, Fleischmann D, Imhof H, Trattnig S (1997) Radiographically occult scaphoid fractures: value of MR imaging in detection. Radiology 203:245–250Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hauer MP, Uhl M, Allmann KH, Laubenberger J, Zimmerhackl LB, Langer M (1998) Comparison of turbo inversion recovery magnitude (TIRM) with T2-weighted turbo spin-echo and T1-weighted spin-echo MR imaging in the early diagnosis of acute osteomyelitis in children. Pediatr Radiol 28:846–850Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmid MR, Hodler J, Vienne P, Binkert CA, Zanetti M (2002) Bone marrow abnormalities of foot and ankle: STIR versus T1-weighted contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 224:463–469Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mirowitz SA, Apicella P, Reinus WR, Hammerman AM (1994) MR imaging of bone marrow lesions: relative conspicuousness on T1-weighted, fat-suppressed T2-weighted, and STIR images. Am J Roentgenol 162:215–221Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erdman WA, Tamburro F, Jayson HT, Weatherall PT, Ferry KB, Peshock RM (1991) Osteomyelitis: characteristics and pitfalls of diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 180:533–539Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gronemeyer SA, Kauffman WM, Rocha MS, Steen RG, Fletcher BD (1997) Fat-saturated contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI in evaluation of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:585–589Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iwasawa T, Tanaka Y, Aida N, Okuzumi S, Nishihira H, Nishimura G (1997) Microscopic intraosseous extension of osteosarcoma: assessment on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Skeletal Radiol 26:214–221Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baudrez V, Galant C, Vande Berg BC (2001) Benign vertebral hemangioma: MR-histological correlation. Skeletal Radiol 30:442–446Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taira G, Endo K, Ito K, Ichimaru K, Imakiire A, Miura Y (1998) Diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation by three-dimensional MRI. J Orthop Sci 3:18–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas H. Mahnken
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joachim E. Wildberger
    • 1
  • Gerhard Adam
    • 2
  • Sven Stanzel
    • 3
  • Thomas Schmitz-Rode
    • 1
  • Rolf W. Günther
    • 1
  • Arno Buecker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University HospitalAachen University of TechnologyAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Hospital Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical StatisticsAachen University of TechnologyAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations