Abstract: Objectives: To differentiate OCVM from other orbital lesions using structural MRI.
Methods: This IRB-approved a historical-prospective cohort single-center analysis of a prospective cohort that included consecutive adult patients presenting with an orbital lesion undergoing a 3T MRI before surgery from December 2015 to May 2021. Two readers blinded to all data read all MRIs assessing structural MRI characteristics. A univariate analysis followed by a stepwise multivariate analysis identified structural MRI features showing the highest sensitivity and specificity when diagnosing OCVM.
Results: One hundred ninety-one patients with 30/191 (16%) OCVM and 161/191 (84%) other orbital lesions were included. OCVM were significantly more likely to present with a higher signal intensity than that of the cortex on T2WI: 26/29 (89.7%) versus 28/160 (17.5%), p < 0.001, or with a chemical shift artifact (CSA): 26/29 (89.7%) versus 16/155 (10.3%), p < 0.001, or to present with a single starting point of enhancement, as compared to other orbital lesions: 18/29 (62.1%) versus 4/159 (2.5%), p = 0.001. The step-wise analysis identified 2 signatures increasing performances. Signature 1 combined a higher signal intensity than that of the cortex on T2WI and a CSA. Signature 2 included these two features and the presence of a single starting point of enhancement. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.83, 0.94, and 0.92 for signature 1 and 0.97, 0.93, and 0.93 for signature 2, respectively.
Conclusion: Structural MRI yields high sensitivity and specificity when diagnosing OCVM.
Key Points: • Structural MRI shows high sensitivity and specificity when diagnosing orbital cavernous venous malformation. • We identified two signatures combining structural MRI features which might be used easily in routine clinical practice. • The combination of higher signal intensity of the lesion as compared to the cortex on T2WI and of a chemical shift artifact yields a sensitivity and specificity of 0.83 and 0.94 for the diagnosis of orbital cavernous venous malformation, respectively.
(© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.)
References: Shields JA, Shields CL, Scartozzi R (2004) Survey of 1264 patients with orbital tumors and simulating lesions: the 2002 Montgomery Lecture, part 1. Ophthalmology 111:997–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.01.002. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.01.00215121380)
Zhang L, Li X, Tang F et al (2020) Diagnostic imaging methods and comparative analysis of orbital cavernous hemangioma. Front Oncol 10:577452. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.577452. (PMID: 10.3389/fonc.2020.577452330726097539693)
Cassarino DS, Dadras SS, Lindberg MR et al (2017) Capillary, venous, and cavernous hemangiomas. In: Diagnostic Pathology: Neoplastic Dermatopathology (Second Edition). Elsevier, pp 386–391.
Classification | International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies. https://www.issva.org/classification . Accessed 19 Oct 2021.
Tawfik HA, Dutton JJ (2021) Orbital vascular anomalies: a nomenclatorial, etiological, and nosologic conundrum. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000002029.
Steele L, Zbeidy S, Thomson J, Flohr C (2019) How is the term haemangioma used in the literature? An evaluation against the revised ISSVA classification. Pediatr Dermatol 36:628–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/pde.13885. (PMID: 10.1111/pde.1388531318089)
Calandriello L, Grimaldi G, Petrone G et al (2017) Cavernous venous malformation (cavernous hemangioma) of the orbit: current concepts and a review of the literature. Surv Ophthalmol 62:393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.01.004. (PMID: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.01.00428131871)
Young SM, Kim Y-D, Lee JH, Woo KI (2018) Radiological analysis of orbital cavernous hemangiomas: a review and comparison between computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Craniofac Surg 29:712–716. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004291. (PMID: 10.1097/SCS.000000000000429129381625)
Tanaka A, Mihara F, Yoshiura T et al (2004) Differentiation of cavernous hemangioma from schwannoma of the orbit: a dynamic MRI study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1799–1804. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831799. (PMID: 10.2214/ajr.183.6.0183179915547232)
Ohtsuka K, Hashimoto M, Akiba H (1997) Serial dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of orbital cavernous hemangioma. Am J Ophthalmol 123:396–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70137-0. (PMID: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70137-09063251)
Jayaram A, Cohen LM, Lissner GS, Karagianis AG (2017) A retrospective review of cases preoperatively diagnosed by radiologic imaging as cavernous venous malformations. Orbit Amst Neth 36:128–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830.2017.1279666. (PMID: 10.1080/01676830.2017.1279666)
Bilaniuk LT (1999) Orbital vascular lesions. Role of imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 37(169–183):xi. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70085-3. (PMID: 10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70085-310026736)
Ansari SA, Mafee MF (2005) Orbital cavernous hemangioma: role of imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 15:137–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2005.02.009. (PMID: 10.1016/j.nic.2005.02.00915927865)
Xian J, Zhang Z, Wang Z et al (2010) Evaluation of MR imaging findings differentiating cavernous haemangiomas from schwannomas in the orbit. Eur Radiol 20:2221–2228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1774-y. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-010-1774-y203937182914262)
Wassef M, Vanwijck R, Clapuyt P et al (2006) Vascular tumours and malformations, classification, pathology and imaging. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 51:263–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anplas.2006.07.017. (PMID: 10.1016/j.anplas.2006.07.01717005309)
Hood MN, Ho VB, Smirniotopoulos JG, Szumowski J (1999) Chemical shift: the artifact and clinical tool revisited. Radiographics 19:357–371. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.2.g99mr07357.
An image-based approach to understanding the physics of MR artifacts - PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21571661/ . Accessed 20 Oct 2021.
Ginat DT, Meyers SP (2012) Intracranial lesions with high signal intensity on T1-weighted MR images: differential diagnosis. Radiographics 32:499–516. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.322105761.
Farshchian N, Tamari S, Farshchian N et al (2011) Diagnostic value of chemical shift artifact in distinguishing benign lymphadenopathy. Eur J Radiol 80:594–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.005. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.00521055893)
Herrick RC, Hayman LA, Taber KH et al (1997) Artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the orbit: a clinical review. Radiographics 17:707–724. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.17.3.9153707.
Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG et al (2017) Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 16:564–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30158-8. (PMID: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30158-828653648)
Mathur M, Jones JR, Weinreb JC (2020) Gadolinium deposition and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a radiologist’s primer. Radiographics 40:153–162. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2020190110.
Xian J, Zhang Z, Wang Z et al (2010) Value of MR imaging in the differentiation of benign and malignant orbital tumors in adults. Eur Radiol 20:1692–1702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1711-0. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-009-1711-0201310552882044)
Lecler A, Savatovsky J, Balvay D et al (2017) Repeatability of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion parameters at 3.0 Tesla in orbital lesions. Eur Radiol 27:5094–5103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4933-6. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-017-4933-6286770615674133)
Lecler A, Duron L, Zmuda M et al (2021) Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) 3 T MRI for orbital lesion characterization. Eur Radiol 31:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07103-1. (PMID: 10.1007/s00330-020-07103-132740820)
Lecler A, Balvay D, Cuenod C-A et al (2019) Quality-based pharmacokinetic model selection on DCE-MRI for characterizing orbital lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 50:1514–1525. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26747.
Hu H, Xu X-Q, Liu H et al (2017) Orbital benign and malignant lymphoproliferative disorders: differentiation using semi-quantitative and quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 88:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.035. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.12.03528189215)
ElKhamary SM, Galindo-Ferreiro A, AlGhafri L et al (2018) Characterization of diffuse orbital mass using apparent diffusion coefficient in 3-tesla MRI. Eur J Radiol Open 5:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejro.2018.03.001. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ejro.2018.03.001297198595926269)
Qian W, Xu X-Q, Hu H et al (2018) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in orbital lymphoproliferative disorders: effects of region of interest selection methods on time efficiency, measurement reproducibility, and diagnostic ability. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 47:1298–1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25859. (PMID: 10.1002/jmri.2585928922524)
Ren J, Yuan Y, Wu Y, Tao X (2018) Differentiation of orbital lymphoma and idiopathic orbital inflammatory pseudotumor: combined diagnostic value of conventional MRI and histogram analysis of ADC maps. BMC Med Imaging 18:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-018-0246-8. (PMID: 10.1186/s12880-018-0246-8297165275930683)
Duron L, Heraud A, Charbonneau F et al (2020) A magnetic resonance imaging radiomics signature to distinguish benign from malignant orbital lesions. Invest Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000722.
Processing Request
No Comments.