Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

Br J OphthalmolSeptember 201213 citations

The validity of routine brain MRI in detecting post-laminar optic nerve involvement in retinoblastoma.

Lee Byung Joo, Kim Jeong Hun, Kim Dong Hun, Park Sung-Hye, Yu Young Suk


AI Summary

Routine brain MRI (5mm sections) for retinoblastoma optic nerve invasion showed high specificity but low sensitivity, suggesting it's poor for detection but good at ruling out false positives.

Abstract

Objective

To describe the diagnostic validity of a gadolinium-enhanced routine brain MRI scan with 5 mm section thickness for the detection of optic nerve involvement in patients with retinoblastoma.

Methods

Medical records of primarily enucleated retinoblastoma patients who underwent routine preoperative brain MRI scan with section thickness of 5 mm were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative magnetic resonance images were independently reviewed in a masked fashion by two radiologists and compared with histological findings.

Results

41 eyes of 41 patients were included and the mean age at enucleation was 23.1 months. Among 41 eyes, 14 eyes were diagnosed to have post-laminar optic nerve invasion on histopathology. The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of MRI for the diagnosis of post-laminar invasion were 73.2%, 35.7% and 92.6%, respectively, by the first radiologist and 78.0%, 42.9% and 96.3%, respectively, by the second radiologist. Moderate agreement was found between two radiologists (κ =0.48, p<0.01).

Conclusions

Compared with the results of previous studies using orbital MRI with less than 3 mm section thickness, routine brain MRI with section thickness of 5 mm showed comparable specificity but inferior sensitivity in detecting optic nerve involvement of retinoblastoma.


MeSH Terms

FemaleGadoliniumHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleObserver VariationOptic NerveOptic Nerve NeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRetinal NeoplasmsRetinoblastomaRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.