Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
Trepo
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä viite 
  •   Etusivu
  • Trepo
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut
  • Näytä viite
  •   Etusivu
  • Trepo
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut
  • Näytä viite
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

An international survey of diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging implementation in the head and neck

Connor, Steve; Christoforou, Alexander; Touska, Philip; Robinson, Soraya; Fischbein, Nancy J.; de Graaf, Pim; Péporté, Anne R.J.; Hirvonen, Jussi; Hadnadjev Šimonji, Darka; Guzmán Pérez-Carrillo, Gloria J.; Wu, Xin; Glastonbury, Christine; Mosier, Kristine M.; Srinivasan, Ashok (2025)

 
Avaa tiedosto
s00330-025-11370-1.pdf (1.507Mt)
Lataukset: 



Connor, Steve
Christoforou, Alexander
Touska, Philip
Robinson, Soraya
Fischbein, Nancy J.
de Graaf, Pim
Péporté, Anne R.J.
Hirvonen, Jussi
Hadnadjev Šimonji, Darka
Guzmán Pérez-Carrillo, Gloria J.
Wu, Xin
Glastonbury, Christine
Mosier, Kristine M.
Srinivasan, Ashok
2025

European Radiology
23
doi:10.1007/s00330-025-11370-1
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202503283075

Kuvaus

Peer reviewed
Tiivistelmä
Objective: The goal of this international survey was to understand how diffusion (DWI) and perfusion imaging (PWI) are being applied to clinical head and neck imaging. Methods and materials: An online questionnaire focusing on acquisition, clinical indications, analysis, and reporting of qualitative DWI (QlDWI), quantitative DWI (QnDWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced PWI (DCE-PWI) in the head and neck was circulated to members of the American Society of Head and Neck Radiology (ASHNR) and European Society of Head and Neck Radiology (ESHNR) over a 3-month period. Descriptive statistics and group comparisons were calculated with SPSS® v27. Results: There were 294 unique respondents (17.6% response rate) from 256 institutions (182 ESHNR, 74 ASHNR). DWI was routinely acquired for some head and neck indications at 95.7% of the respondents’ institutions, with 92.5% of radiologists interpreting QlDWI but only 36.7% analysing QnDWI. QlDWI was most frequently applied to primary mucosal masses or the middle ear, whilst QnDWI was routinely used to distinguish tumour histologies, and primary or recurrent carcinoma. DCE-PWI was routinely acquired at 53.6% of institutions and used by 40.8% of respondents, however, there was no clinical scenario in which it was routinely applied by most users. DCE-PWI analysis methods varied, with time-intensity curve classifications being the most frequently reported. Lack of standardisation was identified as a key reason for not implementing QnDWI, whilst numerous factors prevented the adoption of DCE-PWI. Conclusion: There is widespread routine interpretation of QlDWI by head and neck radiologists, but there is considerable variation in the application and analysis of head and neck QnDWI and DCE-PWI. Key Points: Question How are diffusion (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion imaging (DCE-PWI) being utilised by head and neck radiologists across a wide range of practices? Findings An international survey demonstrated widespread routine interpretation of qualitative DWI but variable application and analysis of quantitative DWI and DCE-PWI with numerous barriers to implementation. Clinical relevance The survey results will aid discussion on how to standardise and optimally disseminate these MRI techniques in day-to-day practice. More focused education and resource allocation may be required to accelerate the adoption of quantitative DWI and DCE-PWI.
Kokoelmat
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut [22451]
Kalevantie 5
PL 617
33014 Tampereen yliopisto
oa[@]tuni.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Selaa kokoelmaa

TekijätNimekkeetTiedekunta (2019 -)Tiedekunta (- 2018)Tutkinto-ohjelmat ja opintosuunnatAvainsanatJulkaisuajatKokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy
Kalevantie 5
PL 617
33014 Tampereen yliopisto
oa[@]tuni.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste