Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Orbital Masses: Multi-Institutional Data Support a 2-ADC Threshold Model to Categorize Lesions as Benign, Malignant, or Indeterminate

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Shields J,
   2. Shields C,
   3. Scartozzi R

   . Survey of 1264 patients with orbital tumors and simulating lesions. 1. The 2002 Montgomery Lecture, part 1. Ophthalmology 2004;111:997–1008

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Mafee M,
   2. Karimi A,
   3. Shah J,
   4. et al

   . Anatomy and pathology of the eye: role of MR imaging and CT. Neuroimaging Clin North Am 2005;15:23–47

   CrossRef
3. 3.↵
   1. Mafee MF,
   2. Edward DP,
   3. Koeller KK,
   4. et al

   . Lacrimal gland tumors and simulating lesions: clinicopathologic and MR imaging features. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:219–39, xii

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Mafee MF,
   2. Goodwin J,
   3. Dorodi S

   . Optic nerve sheath meningiomas: role of MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:37–58, ix

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Mafee MF,
   2. Dorodi S,
   3. Pai E

   . Sarcoidosis of the eye, orbit, and central nervous system: role of MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:73–87, x.

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Valvassori GE,
   2. Sabnis SS,
   3. Mafee RF,
   4. et al

   . Imaging of orbital lymphoproliferative disorders. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:135–50, x–xi

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Carroll GS,
   2. Haik BG,
   3. Fleming JC,
   4. et al

   . Peripheral nerve tumors of the orbit. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:195–202, xi–xii

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Akansel G,
   2. Hendrix L,
   3. Erickson BA,
   4. et al

   . MRI patterns in orbital malignant lymphoma and atypical lymphocytic infiltrates. Eur J Radiol 2005;53:175–81

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Smoker WR,
   2. Gentry LR,
   3. Yee NK,
   4. et al

   . Vascular lesions of the orbit: more than meets the eye. Radiographics 2008;28:185–204, quiz 325

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Razek AA

    . Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of head and neck. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010;34:808–15

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Roshdy N,
    2. Shahin M,
    3. Kishk H,
    4. et al

    . MRI in diagnosis of orbital masses. Curr Eye Res 2010;35:986–91

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    1. Kapur R,
    2. Sepahdari AR,
    3. Mafee MF,
    4. et al

    . MR imaging of orbital inflammatory syndrome, orbital cellulitis, and orbital lymphoid lesions: the role of diffusion-weighted imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:64–70

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Sepahdari AR,
    2. Kapur R,
    3. Aakalu VK,
    4. et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging of malignant ocular masses: initial results and directions for further study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:314–19

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Sepahdari AR,
    2. Aakalu VK,
    3. Setabutr P,
    4. et al

    . Indeterminate orbital masses: restricted diffusion at MR imaging with echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging predicts malignancy. Radiology 2010;256:554–64

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Sepahdari AR,
    2. Aakalu VK,
    3. Kapur R,
    4. et al

    . MRI of orbital cellulitis and orbital abscess: the role of diffusion-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:W244–50

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Razek AA,
    2. Elkhamary S,
    3. Mousa A

    . Differentiation between benign and malignant orbital tumors at 3-T diffusion MR-imaging. Neuroradiology 2011;53:517–22

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Politi LS,
    2. Forghani R,
    3. Godi C,
    4. et al

    . Ocular adnexal lymphoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differential diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring. Radiology 2010;256:565–74

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. de Graaf P,
    2. Pouwels PJ,
    3. Rodjan F,
    4. et al

    . Single-shot turbo spin-echo diffusion-weighted imaging for retinoblastoma: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:110–18

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Srinivasan A,
    2. Dvorak R,
    3. Perni K,
    4. et al

    . Differentiation of benign and malignant pathology in the head and neck using 3T apparent diffusion coefficient values: early experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:40–44

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Maeda M,
    2. Kato H,
    3. Sakuma H,
    4. et al

    . Usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient in line scan diffusion-weighted imaging for distinguishing between squamous cell carcinomas and malignant lymphomas of the head and neck. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1186–92

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Lope LA,
    2. Hutcheson KA,
    3. Khademian ZP

    . Magnetic resonance imaging in the analysis of pediatric orbital tumors: utility of diffusion-weighted imaging. J AAPOS 2010;14:257–62

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Yang BT,
    2. Wang YZ,
    3. Dong JY,
    4. et al

    . MRI study of solitary fibrous tumor in the orbit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:W506–11

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Kamano H,
    2. Noguchi T,
    3. Yoshiura T,
    4. et al

    . Intraorbital lobular capillary hemangioma (pyogenic granuloma). Radiat Med 2008;26:609–12

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Chenevert TL,
    2. Galbán CJ,
    3. Ivancevic MK,
    4. et al

    . Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;34:983–87

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Chung EM,
    2. Specht CS,
    3. Schroeder JW

    . From the archives of the AFIP: pediatric orbit tumors and tumorlike lesions: neuroepithelial lesions of the ocular globe and optic nerve. Radiographics 2007;27:1159–86

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Bilgili Y,
    2. Unal B

    . Effect of region of interest on interobserver variance in apparent diffusion coefficient measures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:108–11

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Sasaki M,
    2. Yamada K,
    3. Watanabe Y,
    4. et al

    . Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 2008;249:624–30

    CrossRefPubMed