Role of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging with 1.5 and 3 Tesla Scanners in Cholesteatoma Diagnosis and Follow-up

Abstract

Objective: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWMRI) is a valuable imaging technique that has gained widespread use in recent years, particularly for evaluating cholesteatoma. Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of DWMRI for the primary diagnosis and follow-up of recurrent or residual cholesteatoma in chronic otitis media and to compare the efficacy of two different DWMRI protocols obtained using 1.5 and 3 Tesla scanners.

Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgery at a University Hospital's Department of Otorhinolaryngology for cholesteatoma, confirmed by clinical findings or pathology, and had accessible preoperative imaging in the hospital database between May 2018 and August 2022.

Results: Forty-two ears were included in our study. In our study group, the sensitivity of DWMRI in detecting cholesteatoma was 82.8%, whereas the specificity was 84.6%. The positive predictive value was 92.3%, and the negative predictive value was 68.8%. When evaluating the effectiveness of DWMRI separately in six postoperative ears, the sensitivity was 83.3%, and the positive predictive value was 100%. In the group of 30 ears examined with 1.5 Tesla, DWMRI sensitivity reached 100%, with a positive predictive value of 90.5%, specificity of 81.8%, and a negative predictive value of 100%. In the 3 Tesla group with 12 ears, the sensitivity was 50%, while the positive predictive value was 100%, specificity was 100%, and the negative predictive value was 28.6%. When comparing these results, imaging with 1.5 Tesla proved to be statistically more effective regarding sensitivity and negative predictive value.

Conclusions: This study underscores the important role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of cholesteatoma and indicates that imaging protocols using a 1.5 Tesla scanner may yield favorable diagnostic performance. However, given the limited sample size in the 3T cohort, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further studies with larger and more balanced groups are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Keywords

• Cholesteatoma
• Middle Ear
• Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• Otitis media

References

1. Kennedy KL, Singh AK. Middle Ear Cholesteatoma. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing 2024 9.
2. Jindal M, Riskalla A, Jiang D, Connor S, O’Connor AF. A systematic review of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of postoperative cholesteatoma. Otol Neurotol 2011 ;32(8):1243–9.
3. Piekarek A, Zatoński T, Kolator M, Bladowska J, Sąsiadek M, Zimny A. The value of different diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance techniques in the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma. Is there still an indication for echo-planar diffusion‑weighted imaging? Pol J Radiol 2022 20;87:e51–7.
4. Gillard JH, Papadakis NG, Martin K, Price CJ, Warburton EA, Antoun NM, et al. MR diffusion tensor imaging of white matter tract disruption in stroke at 3 T. Br J Radiol 2001 ;74(883):642–7.
5. Mazaheri Y, Vargas HA, Nyman G, Akin O, Hricak H. Image artifacts on prostate diffusion‑weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade‑offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Acad Radiol 2013 ;20(8):1041–7.
6. Tierney PA, Pracy P, Blaney SP, Bowdler DA. An assessment of the value of the preoperative computed tomography scans prior to otoendoscopic ‘second look’ in intact canal wall mastoid surgery. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1999 ;24(4):274–6.
7. Lingam RK, Nash R, Majithia A, Kalan A, Singh A. Non‑echoplanar diffusion weighted imaging in the detection of post‑operative middle ear cholesteatoma: navigating beyond the pitfalls to find the pearl. Insights Imaging 2016 ;7(5):669–78.
8. Li PM, Linos E, Gurgel RK, Fischbein NJ, Blevins NH. Evaluating the utility of non‑echo‑planar diffusion‑weighted imaging in the preoperative evaluation of cholesteatoma: a meta‑analysis. Laryngoscope 2013 ;123(5):1247–50.

9. Akkari M, Gabrillargues J, Saroul N, Pereira B, Russier M, Mom T et al. Contribution of magnetic resonance imaging to the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma: analysis of a series of 97 cases. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2014 ;131(3):153–8.
10. Alvo A, Garrido C, Salas Á, Miranda G, Stott CE, Delano PH. Use of non‑echo‑planar diffusion‑weighted MR imaging for the detection of cholesteatomas in high‑risk tympanic retraction pockets. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014 ;35(9):1820–4.
11. Vaid S, Kamble Y, Vaid N, Bhatti S, Rawat S, Nanivadekar A, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in cholesteatoma: the Indian experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013 Suppl 3:485–92.
12. Cavaliere M, Di Lullo AM, Caruso A, Caliendo G, Elefante A, Brunetti A, et al. Diffusion‑weighted intensity magnetic resonance in the preoperative diagnosis of cholesteatoma. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2014 ;76(4):212–21.
13. Khemani S, Lingam RK, Kalan A, Singh A. The value of non‑echo planar HASTE diffusion‑weighted MR imaging in the detection, localisation and prediction of extent of postoperative cholesteatoma. Clin Otolaryngol 2011 ;36(4):306–12.
14. Van Egmond SL, Stegeman I, Grolman W, Aarts MC. A systematic review of non‑echo planar diffusion‑weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detection of primary and postoperative cholesteatoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016 ;154(2):233–40.
15. Muzaffar J, Metcalfe C, Colley S, Coulson C. Diffusion‑weighted magnetic resonance imaging for residual and recurrent cholesteatoma: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 2017 ;42(3):536–43.
16. Osman NM, Rahman AA, Ali MT. The accuracy and sensitivity of diffusion‑weighted magnetic resonance imaging with apparent diffusion coefficients in diagnosis of recurrent cholesteatoma. Eur J Radiol Open 2017 23;4:27–39.
17. Lingam RK, Bassett P. A meta‑analysis on the diagnostic performance of non‑echoplanar diffusion‑weighted imaging in detecting middle ear cholesteatoma: 10 years on. Otol Neurotol 2017 ;38(4):521–8.
18. Lincot J, Veillon F, Riehm S, Babay N, Matern JF, Rock B, et al. Middle ear cholesteatoma: compared diagnostic performances of two incremental MRI protocols including non‑echo planar diffusion‑weighted imaging acquired on 3 T and 1.5 T scanners. J Neuroradiol 2015 ;42(4):193–201.
19. Alvarez‑Linera J. 3 T MRI: advances in brain imaging. Eur J Radiol 2008 ;67(3):415–26.
20. Lips LMJ, Nelemans PJ, Theunissen FMD, Roele E, van Tongeren J, Hof JR, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 1.5 T versus 3 T non‑echo‑planar diffusion‑weighted imaging in the detection of residual or recurrent cholesteatoma in the middle ear and mastoid. J Neuroradiol 2020 ;47(6):433–40.
21. Russo C, Elefante A, Di Lullo AM, Carotenuto B, D'Amico A, Cavaliere M, et al. ADC benchmark range for correct diagnosis of primary and recurrent middle ear cholesteatoma. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:7945482.
22. Cavaliere M, Di Lullo AM, Cantone E, Scala G, Elefante A, Russo C, et al. Cholesteatoma vs granulation tissue: a differential diagnosis by DWI‑MRI apparent diffusion coefficient. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018 ;275(9):2237–43.
23. Widmann G, Henninger B, Kremser C, Jaschke W. MRI sequences in head & neck radiology – state of the art. Rofo 2017;189(5):413–22