title: Which MR imaging sequences are necessary in determining the need for radiation therapy for cord compression? A prospective study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine which MR imaging sequences are necessary to assess for spinal metastases.
  
  
  METHODS
  Hypothetical MR imaging interpretations and management plans were made prospectively for consecutive adult cases acquired retrospectively. Standardized MR imaging protocols were independently interpreted by 2 neuroradiologists. MR imaging protocol types varied: 1) T1-weighted images only; 2) T1-weighted and T2-weighted images; 3) T1-weighted and postcontrast T1-weighted images; and 4) T1- and T2-weighted images and postcontrast T1-weighted images. Hypothetical management plans were created by 2 radiation oncologists. Logit model was used to investigate the effect of MR imaging protocol type on the probability of recommending radiation therapy (RT). Mixed effect models were used to investigate whether median spinal level or total number of spinal levels of planned RT was associated with MR imaging protocol type.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Thirty-one subjects were evaluated, each with multiple scan interpretations. Logit model showed that neither MR imaging protocol type nor neuroradiologist reader affected the probability that the oncologist would recommend RT (all P > .50). Mixed models showed that neither ML nor NL was affected by MR imaging protocol type or by neuroradiologist reader (all P > .12).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although MR imaging is known to be the most useful diagnostic test in suspected spinal cord compression, which particular MR images are necessary remain unclear. Compared with T1-weighted images alone, the additional use of T2-weighted and/or postcontrast T1-weighted sequences did not significantly affect the probability that RT would be recommended or the levels that would be chosen for RT in our study. Our data suggest that unenhanced T1-weighted images may be sufficient for evaluation of possible cord compression.
authors.affiliation: Neuroradiology Division, Department of Radiology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. annejohn@iupui.edu
authors.forename: A J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Johnson
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ying
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: El Gammal
authors.forename: R D
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Timmerman
authors.forename: R Y
authors.initials: RY
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Littenberg
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003287:Contrast Media / Q000008:administration & dosage; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013117:Spinal Cord Compression / Q000175:diagnosis*; D013125:Spinal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000532:radiotherapy* / Q000556:secondary*; D013131:Spine / Q000473:pathology
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media