Qualitative and quantitative diagnosis of intramuscular hemangioma subtypes: Diagnostic performance comparison of ESWAN and conventional MRI

Background Preoperative identification of intramuscular hemangioma (IMH) subtypes (capillary hemangioma, cavernous hemangioma, and mixed hemangioma) is urgently necessary. Enhanced T2*-weighted angiography (ESWAN) is sensitive to vessels and metabolites and can be used to diagnose IMH subtypes. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performances of ESWAN and conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for qualitative and quantitative diagnosis of IMH subtypes. Material and Methods In total, 23 patients with IMHs were examined using conventional MRI and ESWAN. The signal intensity ratios (SIRs) of conventional MRI and ESWAN were measured. Results There was no significant difference for volume among the three subtypes ( P = 0.124, P = 0.145). Various shapes and MRI signals were shown in the three subtypes of IMH. There was no significant difference for SIRs of conventional MRI ( P = 0.558, P = 0.259, P = 0.385, P = 0.347). However, there was a significant difference for SIRs of ESWAN parameters ( P = 0.050, P < 0.001, P = 0.005, P = 0.002). Capillary hemangiomas can be diagnosed when R2* SIR is <0.912 and intratumoral susceptibility signal (ITSS) percentage is <29.085%. Cavernous hemangiomas should be considered when R2* SIR is >0.912, ITSS percentage >35.226%, and phase SIR >2.536. In addition, mixed hemangiomas should be considered when T2* SIR is >0.662 and R2* SIR <1.618. Conclusion Conventional MRI can only display the volume, shape, and signal of IMHs. 3D-MinIP imaging of ESWAN can show the veins and minor hemorrhage. SIRs of ESWAN parameters including T2* value, R2* value, phase value, and percentage of ITSS can be used to quantitatively diagnose capillary hemangiomas, cavernous hemangiomas, and mixed hemangiomas.

Qualitative and Quantitative Diagnosis in Head and Neck Cancer

The diagnosis is the art of determining the nature of a disease, and an accurate diagnosis is the true cornerstone on which rational treatment should be built. Within the workflow in the management of head and neck tumours, there are different types of diagnosis. The purpose of this work is to point out the differences and the aims of the different types of diagnoses and to highlight their importance in the management of patients with head and neck tumours. Qualitative diagnosis is performed by a pathologist and is essential in determining the management and can provide guidance on prognosis. The evolution of immunohistochemistry and molecular biology techniques has made it possible to obtain more precise diagnoses and to identify prognostic markers and precision factors. Quantitative diagnosis is made by the radiologist and consists of identifying a mass lesion and the estimation of the tumour volume and extent using imaging techniques, such as CT, MRI, and PET. The distinction between the two types of diagnosis is clear, as the methodology is different. The accurate establishment of both diagnoses plays an essential role in treatment planning. Getting the right diagnosis is a key aspect of health care, and it provides an explanation of a patient’s health problem and informs subsequent decision. Deep learning and radiomics approaches hold promise for improving diagnosis.