Advertisement

Diagnostic evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging with turbo inversion recovery sequence in head and neck tumors

  • Maliha Sadick
  • Haneen Sadick
  • Karl Hörmann
  • C. Düber
  • Steffen J. Diehl
Head and Neck Oncology

Abstract

The clinical outcome of patients with head and neck cancer depends on many factors such as tumor size, metastatic involvement and angioarchitecture of the tumor. The correct staging of tumor extension, presence of cervical lymph node metastases and evaluation of vascular infiltration are essential diagnostic steps before treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of turbo inversion recovery magnitude (TIRM) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of head and neck tumors with special attention to tumor size and tumor spread according to the current TNM classification. TIRM sequence with short T1 relaxation and long TE (echo time) improves imaging contrast because of the increased T1-weighting and the inherent fat suppression. In a prospective clinical study, 32 patients underwent preoperative MRI. Diagnosis was confirmed histologically in all cases. Scanning was performed on a 1.0-T unit applying TIRM as well as T1- and T2-weighted turbo spin echo (TSE) sequences. In all sequences, tumor size was overestimated due to reactive inflammatory changes surrounding the tumor tissue. The least overestimation was documented on TIRM and post-contrast T1 TSE. The highest values of relative tumor signal intensities were obtained in TIRM (3.5±0.9) and T2 TSE (3.5±0.8) followed by post-contrast T1 TSE (1.6±0.7) and pre-contrast T1 TSE (1.2±0.3). Due to the inherent fat suppression, tumor delineation was most obvious in TIRM. In patients with suspected cancer of the head and neck, TIRM should be considered as a standard and a diagnostically relevant sequence in the MRI staging protocol.

Keywords

MRI Head and neck cancer TIRM sequence Preoperative staging 

References

  1. 1.
    Becker M, Moulin G, Kurt AM, Zbären P, Dulgerov P, Marchal F, Zanaret P, Lehmann W, Rüfenacht DA, Terrier F (1998) Atypical squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx and hypopharynx: radiologic features and pathologic correlation. Eur Radiol. 8:1541–1551Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker M (1998) Head and neck Imaging–larynx and hypopharynx. Radiol Clin N Am 36:891–920PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brekel van den MWM, Stel HV, Castelijns JA, Nauta JJP, Waal van den I, Valk J, Meyer CJLM, Snow GB (1990) Cervical lymph node metastasis: assessment of radiological criteria. Radiology 177:379–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brekel van den MWM, Castelijns JA, Stel HV, Valk J, Croll GA, Golding RP, Luth WJ, Meyer CJ, Snow G (1990) Detection and characterization of metastatic cervical adenopathy by MR imaging: comparison of different MR techniques. J Comput Assist Tomogr 14:581–589PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fischbein NJ, Noworolwski SM, Henry RG, Kaplan MJ, Dillon WP, Nelson SJ (2003) Assessment of metastatic cervical adenopathy using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 24:301–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haas I, Hoffmann TK, Engers R, Ganzer U (2002) Diagnostic strategies in cervical carcinoma of an unknown primary (CUP). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 259:325–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keberle M, Ströbel P, Marx A, Hahn D, Hoppe F (2003) CT determination of lymphocytic infiltration around head and neck squamous cell carcinomas may be a predictor of lymph node metastases. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 260:558–564Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lamer S, Sigal R, Lassau N, Bosq J, Frouin F, Di Paola M, Mamelle G, Leclère J, Bittoun J, Di Paola R (1996) Radiological assessment of intranodal vascularity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Invest Radiol 31:673–679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ross MR, Schomer DF, Chappell P, Enzmann DR (1994) MR imaging of head and neck tumors: comparison of T1-weighted contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed images with conventional T2-weighted and fast spin-echo T2-weighted images. Am J Roentgenol 163:173–178Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shah GV, Fischbein NJ, Patel R, Mukherji SK (2003) Newer MR imaging techniques for head and neck. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 11:449–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Som PM (1992) Detection of metastasis in cervical lymph nodes: CT and MR criteria and differential diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol 158:961–969Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinkamp HJ, Heim T, Schubeus P, Schörner W, Felix R (1992). The MRT differentiation between reactive lymph node enlargement and cervical lymph node metastases. Fortschr Röntgenstr 157:406–413Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steinkamp HJ, Heim T, Mäurer J, Mathe F, Felix R (1993) Ranking of MR tomography and CT in tumor staging of carcinoma of the larynx/hypopharynx. Fortschr Röntgenstr 158:437–444Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sumi M, Sakihama N, Sumi T, Morikawa M, Uetani M, Kabasawa H, Shigeno K, Hayashi K, Takahashi H, Nakamura T (2003) Discrimination of metastatic cervical lymph nodes with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with head and neck cancer Am J Neuroradiol 24:1627–1634Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zbären P, Becker M, Läng H (1997) Staging of laryngeal cancer: endoscopy, computed tomography and magnetic resonance versus histopathology. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 254:117–122Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maliha Sadick
    • 1
  • Haneen Sadick
    • 2
  • Karl Hörmann
    • 2
  • C. Düber
    • 1
  • Steffen J. Diehl
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Clinical Radiology Faculty for Clinical Medicine of the University of HeidelbergUniversity Hospital of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Faculty for Clinical Medicine of the University of HeidelbergUniversity Hospital of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations