↓ Skip to main content

Differentiating Benign from Malignant Sinonasal Lesions: Feasibility of Diffusion Weighted MRI

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differentiating Benign from Malignant Sinonasal Lesions: Feasibility of Diffusion Weighted MRI
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, January 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0036-1597323
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khaled M. El-Gerby, Mohammad Waheed El-Anwar

Abstract

Introduction  Appearance of nasal masses on routine CT and MRI are not pathognomonic. We utilized the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value obtained from diffusion weighted image (DWI) to detect the differences in the microstructures of tumor and non-tumor tissues. Objective  The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic role of DWI and ADC values in differentiating between malignant and benign sinonasal lesions and its correlation with histopathological results as the reference standard. Methods  Patients with nasal and / or paranasal mass underwent CT, MRI, and DWI before any surgical intervention. We used diagnostic sinonasal endoscopy and biopsy to confirm the diagnosis after MRI. Results  When we used ADC value of (1.2 × 10-3 mm2/s) as a cut-off value for differentiating benign from malignant sinonasal lesions, we achieved 90% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, 88.4% specificity, 77.8% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value. At this cut-off, benign lesions show statistically significant higher ADC value than malignant tumors. Conclusion  DW MRI and ADC value calculation are promising quantitative methods helping to differentiate between malignant and benign sinonasal lesions. Thus, they are effective methods compared with other conventional methods with short imaging time thus it is recommended to be incorporated into routine evaluations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 27%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 53%
Unspecified 2 13%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Energy 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,390,619
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#307
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,157
of 421,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 646 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.