Improved Detection of Skull Metastasis with Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Metastasis to the skull is clinically important, but routine MR imaging offers moderate sensitivity for skull-metastasis detection in our experience. We sought to determine if diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) could improve the detection of skull metastasis in patients with primary carcinomas that metastasized to bone compared with conventional MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients from the tumor registry of our institution with extracranial primary malignancy who had brain MR imaging with DWI and radionuclide bone scanning (RNBS, gold standard) within a 6-week interval were evaluated. Thirty-eight patients demonstrated increased radiopharmaceutical uptake on RNBS, consistent with skull metastasis of any size, and the remaining 37 were control subjects. Two readers correlated the DWI and conventional MR imaging with RNBS. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of DWI for detection of skull metastases was 68.4%–71.1% (κ = 0.68) versus 42.1%–55.3% (κ = 0.65) for conventional MR imaging. Breast cancer (n = 20) was detected with greatest sensitivity of 86.7%–93.3% (κ = 0.80) for DWI versus 60%–80% (κ = 0.5) for conventional MR imaging. Lung cancer (n = 32) was detected with 63.6%–72.7% sensitivity (κ = 0.56), and prostate cancer (n = 8) with 14.3% sensitivity (κ = 0.5) for DWI versus 27.3%–36.4% (κ = 0.81) and 14.3–42.9% (κ = 0), respectively, for conventional MR imaging. CONCLUSIONS: DWI is a useful sequence for identifying focal skull metastases for breast and lung malignancies and, compared with conventional MR imaging, provides improved detection of these lesions. DWI is insensitive for detecting skull metastases from prostate carcinoma.

[1]  M. Reiser,et al.  Techniques for diffusion-weighted imaging of bone marrow. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[2]  K. Friedrich,et al.  Diffusion weighted imaging of bone marrow pathologies. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[3]  Thomas McGinn,et al.  Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic) , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[4]  S. Maier,et al.  Quantitative assessment of diffusion abnormalities in benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures by line scan diffusion-weighted imaging. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  M. Castillo Diffusion-weighted imaging of the spine: is it reliable? , 2003, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[6]  Roland Bammer,et al.  Line scan diffusion imaging of the spine. , 2003, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[7]  H. Imhof,et al.  Vertebral metastases: assessment with apparent diffusion coefficient. , 2002, Radiology.

[8]  J. Finsterbusch,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of metastatic disease of the spine: assessment of response to therapy. , 2002, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[9]  W. Peh,et al.  Acute vertebral body compression fractures: discrimination between benign and malignant causes using apparent diffusion coefficients. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  T. Hsia,et al.  Comparing whole body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography and technetium-99m methylene diophosphate bone scan to detect bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. , 2002, Neoplasma.

[11]  Xiaohong Joe Zhou,et al.  Characterization of benign and metastatic vertebral compression fractures with quantitative diffusion MR imaging. , 2002, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[12]  J. Sunshine Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Distinction of Benign from Metastatic Vertebral Compression Fractures: Is This a Numbers Game? , 2002 .

[13]  G Adam,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiation of benign fracture edema and tumor infiltration of the vertebral body. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Diffusion-weighted imaging of acute vertebral compressions: specific diagnosis of benign versus malignant pathologic fractures. , 2001, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[15]  M. Reiser,et al.  Diagnostic value of increased diffusion weighting of a steady-state free precession sequence for differentiating acute benign osteoporotic fractures from pathologic vertebral compression fractures. , 2001, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[16]  R. Gonzalez,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the brain. , 2000, Radiology.

[17]  M. Castillo,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging offers no advantage over routine noncontrast MR imaging in the detection of vertebral metastases. , 2000, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[18]  K. Okamoto,et al.  CT and MR imaging of the “target sign” in metastatic brain disease , 2000, European Radiology.

[19]  D. Bihan,et al.  Differentiation of benign versus pathologic compression fractures with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: a closer step toward the "holy grail" of tissue characterization? , 1998 .

[20]  M Deimling,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of bone marrow: differentiation of benign versus pathologic compression fractures. , 1998, Radiology.

[21]  D. Le Bihan Differentiation of benign versus pathologic compression fractures with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: a closer step toward the "holy grail" of tissue characterization? , 1998, Radiology.

[22]  D Chien,et al.  MR diffusion imaging of cerebral infarction in humans. , 1992, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[23]  C. P. Wells,et al.  Is the skull view necessary in routine gamma camera bone scanning? , 1985, Nuclear medicine communications.

[24]  M. Francis,et al.  Correlation of neoplasms with incidence and localization of skeletal metastases: An analysis of 1,355 diphosphonate bone scans. , 1975, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.