Determining Etiology of Facial Nerve Paralysis With MRI: Challenges in Malignancy Detection

Author:

Tolisano Anthony M.1ORCID,Hunter Jacob B.1,Sakai Mark1,Kutz Joe Walter1,Moore William2,Pinho Marco2,Isaacson Brandon1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

2. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Abstract

Objective:Compare experts’ ability to differentiate malignant and benign causes of facial nerve paralysis (FNP) using the initial presenting magnetic resonance image (MRI) for each patient.Methods:This retrospective case-controlled study compared MRIs for 9 patients with a malignant cause for FNP, 8 patients with Bell’s palsy, and 9 cochlear implant patients serving as controls. The initial presenting MRI for each condition was used such that raters were evaluating real-world rather than optimal studies. Three blinded expert raters independently evaluated each segment of the facial nerve for abnormalities, provided a diagnosis, and graded MRI quality. Cohen’s and Light’s kappa were used to calculate interrater reliability and overall index of agreement, respectively.Results:MRI protocols for the malignancy group were universally suboptimal. There was poor agreement among raters for abnormalities of the facial nerve along the brainstem (0.13), geniculate (0.10), tympanic segment (0.12), and mastoid segment (0.13); moderate agreement along the cisternal segment (0.58) and internal auditory canal (0.55); and fair agreement along the labyrinthine segment (0.26) and extratemporal segment (0.36). Agreement regarding final diagnosis was fair (0.37) when compared to the true diagnosis. There were 2 false negative interpretations (failure to correctly identify malignancy) and 1 false positive interpretation.Conclusion:MRI for FNP is often initially performed with an incorrect protocol and thus may fail to reliably differentiate neoplastic from inflammatory FNP even when interpreted by experienced clinicians. Nevertheless, expert readers correctly diagnosed 87.5% of malignant causes of FNP despite these limitations.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Medicine,Otorhinolaryngology

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3