对比增强脑MRI用于动态评估头痛:全面还是过度?

Emil J Barkovich, Karen Buch, William A Mehan
{"title":"对比增强脑MRI用于动态评估头痛:全面还是过度?","authors":"Emil J Barkovich, Karen Buch, William A Mehan","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Headache is one of the most common indications for brain MR imaging. Our purpose was to assess the necessity and yield of contrast-enhanced brain MRI protocols relative to noncontrast protocols for the outpatient evaluation of headache in adults.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 874 consecutive adult outpatient brain contrast-enhanced MRIs for the indication of headache. Examination impressions were reviewed for any findings contributing to headache and stratified into 18 categories. Incidental findings unrelated to headache but mentioned in the report impressions were recorded. A subset of 100 contrast-relevant cases were selected for independent blinded review by 2 neuroradiologists first without contrast and then after a 3-week washout period, with and without contrast. Reviewers were asked to classify cases as positive/negative and to describe relevant findings. Specific diagnoses were compared between reviews and readers on a case-by-case basis. Intrareader agreement was calculated between noncontrast and postcontrast reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen percent of examinations had findings potentially related to headaches. Two percent of cases were deemed contrast relevant. Incidental findings were reported in 4% of cases. On the blinded double review, the percentage of positive cases remained essentially unchanged, decreasing by 1.5% with contrast-enhanced images available. All intra- and extra-axial masses associated with parenchymal edema were detected without contrast. Detection rate of small, incidental meningiomas doubled on postcontrast sequences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine acquisition of contrast-enhanced MRIs for outpatients with an indication of headache had a low yield. Noncontrast examinations demonstrated similar sensitivity for actionable intracranial pathology, while contrast-enhanced MRIs doubled the detection rate of incidental meningiomas. A more practical initial approach may be starting with noncontrast examinations with callbacks or additional imaging for a small percentage of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":"46 9","pages":"1780-1785"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12453478/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrast-Enhanced Brain MRI for Ambulatory Evaluation of Headache: Comprehensive or Excessive?\",\"authors\":\"Emil J Barkovich, Karen Buch, William A Mehan\",\"doi\":\"10.3174/ajnr.A8780\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Headache is one of the most common indications for brain MR imaging. Our purpose was to assess the necessity and yield of contrast-enhanced brain MRI protocols relative to noncontrast protocols for the outpatient evaluation of headache in adults.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 874 consecutive adult outpatient brain contrast-enhanced MRIs for the indication of headache. Examination impressions were reviewed for any findings contributing to headache and stratified into 18 categories. Incidental findings unrelated to headache but mentioned in the report impressions were recorded. A subset of 100 contrast-relevant cases were selected for independent blinded review by 2 neuroradiologists first without contrast and then after a 3-week washout period, with and without contrast. Reviewers were asked to classify cases as positive/negative and to describe relevant findings. Specific diagnoses were compared between reviews and readers on a case-by-case basis. Intrareader agreement was calculated between noncontrast and postcontrast reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen percent of examinations had findings potentially related to headaches. Two percent of cases were deemed contrast relevant. Incidental findings were reported in 4% of cases. On the blinded double review, the percentage of positive cases remained essentially unchanged, decreasing by 1.5% with contrast-enhanced images available. All intra- and extra-axial masses associated with parenchymal edema were detected without contrast. Detection rate of small, incidental meningiomas doubled on postcontrast sequences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine acquisition of contrast-enhanced MRIs for outpatients with an indication of headache had a low yield. Noncontrast examinations demonstrated similar sensitivity for actionable intracranial pathology, while contrast-enhanced MRIs doubled the detection rate of incidental meningiomas. A more practical initial approach may be starting with noncontrast examinations with callbacks or additional imaging for a small percentage of patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\"46 9\",\"pages\":\"1780-1785\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12453478/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8780\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:头痛是脑磁共振成像最常见的适应症之一。我们的目的是评估对比增强脑MRI方案相对于非对比方案在门诊评估成人头痛的必要性和产量。材料和方法:我们回顾性分析了874例连续的成人门诊脑磁共振增强成像的头痛指征。检查印象回顾任何发现有助于头痛和分层为18类。与头痛无关但在报告印象中提到的偶然发现被记录下来。由2名神经放射学家选择100例与对比相关的病例进行独立盲法评价,首先不进行对比,然后经过3周的洗脱期,进行对比和不进行对比。审稿人被要求将病例分类为阳性/阴性,并描述相关发现。在个案的基础上,对评论和读者的具体诊断进行比较。计算非对比和对比后评价之间的读者内部一致性。结果:18%的检查发现可能与头痛有关。2%的案例被认为与对比度相关。4%的病例报告了偶然发现。在双盲评价中,阳性病例的百分比基本保持不变,使用对比度增强图像时下降了1.5%。所有与实质水肿相关的轴内和轴外肿块均未进行对比检查。小的偶发脑膜瘤的检出率在对比序列上翻了一番。结论:对于有头痛指征的门诊患者,常规获取对比增强mri的成功率较低。非对比检查对可操作的颅内病理表现出相似的敏感性,而增强mri对偶发脑膜瘤的检出率增加了一倍。一种更实用的初步方法可能是从非对比检查开始,对一小部分患者进行回调或额外的影像学检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contrast-Enhanced Brain MRI for Ambulatory Evaluation of Headache: Comprehensive or Excessive?

Background and purpose: Headache is one of the most common indications for brain MR imaging. Our purpose was to assess the necessity and yield of contrast-enhanced brain MRI protocols relative to noncontrast protocols for the outpatient evaluation of headache in adults.

Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed 874 consecutive adult outpatient brain contrast-enhanced MRIs for the indication of headache. Examination impressions were reviewed for any findings contributing to headache and stratified into 18 categories. Incidental findings unrelated to headache but mentioned in the report impressions were recorded. A subset of 100 contrast-relevant cases were selected for independent blinded review by 2 neuroradiologists first without contrast and then after a 3-week washout period, with and without contrast. Reviewers were asked to classify cases as positive/negative and to describe relevant findings. Specific diagnoses were compared between reviews and readers on a case-by-case basis. Intrareader agreement was calculated between noncontrast and postcontrast reviews.

Results: Eighteen percent of examinations had findings potentially related to headaches. Two percent of cases were deemed contrast relevant. Incidental findings were reported in 4% of cases. On the blinded double review, the percentage of positive cases remained essentially unchanged, decreasing by 1.5% with contrast-enhanced images available. All intra- and extra-axial masses associated with parenchymal edema were detected without contrast. Detection rate of small, incidental meningiomas doubled on postcontrast sequences.

Conclusions: Routine acquisition of contrast-enhanced MRIs for outpatients with an indication of headache had a low yield. Noncontrast examinations demonstrated similar sensitivity for actionable intracranial pathology, while contrast-enhanced MRIs doubled the detection rate of incidental meningiomas. A more practical initial approach may be starting with noncontrast examinations with callbacks or additional imaging for a small percentage of patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信