High-Resolution T2-Weighted Imaging for Surveillance in Postoperative Vestibular Schwannoma: Equivalence with Contrast-Enhanced T1WI for Measurement and Surveillance of Residual Tumor

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Yoshimoto Y

   . Systematic review of the natural history of vestibular schwannoma. J Neurosurg 2005;103:59–63 doi:10.3171/jns.2005.103.1.0059 pmid:16121974

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Chen Z,
   2. Prasad SC,
   3. Di Lella F, et al

   . The behavior of residual tumors and facial nerve outcomes after incomplete excision of vestibular schwannomas. J Neurosurg 2014;120:1278–87 doi:10.3171/2014.2.JNS131497 pmid:24724851

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Tang S,
   2. Griffin AS,
   3. Waksal JA, et al

   . Surveillance after resection of vestibular schwannoma: measurement techniques and predictors of growth. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1271–76 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000459 pmid:24914795

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Miller ME,
   2. Lin H,
   3. Mastrodimos B, et al

   . Long‐term MRI surveillance after microsurgery for vestibular schwannoma. Laryngoscope 2017;127:2132–38 doi:10.1002/lary.26525 pmid:28294345

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Ahmad RARL,
   2. Sivalingam S,
   3. Topsakal V, et al

   . Rate of recurrent vestibular schwannoma after total removal via different surgical approaches. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2012;121:156–61 doi:10.1177/000348941212100303 pmid:22530474

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Mathur M,
   2. Jones JR,
   3. Weinreb JC

   . Gadolinium deposition and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a radiologist’s primer. Radiographics 2020;40:153–62 doi:10.1148/rg.2020190110 pmid:31809230

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Robert P,
   2. Fingerhut S,
   3. Factor C, et al

   . One-year retention of gadolinium in the brain: comparison of gadodiamide and gadoterate meglumine in a rodent model. Radiology 2018;288:424–33 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172746 pmid:29786486

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Radbruch A,
   2. Weberling LD,
   3. Kieslich PJ, et al

   . Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 2015;275:783–91 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150337 pmid:25848905

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Crowson MG,
   2. Rocke DJ,
   3. Hoang JK, et al

   . Cost-effectiveness analysis of a non-contrast screening MRI protocol for vestibular schwannoma in patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Neuroradiology 2017;59:727–36 doi:10.1007/s00234-017-1859-2 pmid:28623482

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Dunn IF,
    2. Bi WL,
    3. Mukundan S, et al

    . Congress of Neurological Surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guidelines on the role of imaging in the diagnosis and management of patients with vestibular schwannomas. Neurosurgery 2018;82:E32–34 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx510 pmid:29309686

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Dang L,
    2. Tu NC-Y,
    3. Chan EY

    . Current imaging tools for vestibular schwannoma. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;28:302–07 doi:10.1097/MOO.0000000000000647 pmid:32833884

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Schmalbrock P,
    2. Chakeres DW,
    3. Monroe JW, et al

    . Assessment of internal auditory canal tumors: a comparison of contrast-enhanced T1-weighted and steady-state T2-weighted gradient-echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:1207–13 pmid:10472973

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Annesley-Williams D,
    2. Laitt R,
    3. Jenkins J, et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging in the investigation of sensorineural hearing loss: is contrast enhancement still necessary? J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:14–21 doi:10.1258/0022215011906920 pmid:11233615

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Fukui MB,
    2. Weissman JL,
    3. Curtin HD, et al

    . T2-weighted MR characteristics of internal auditory canal masses. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:1211–18 pmid:8871701

    PubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Shelton C,
    2. Harnsberger HR,
    3. Allen R, et al

    . Fast spin echo magnetic resonance imaging: clinical application in screening for acoustic neuroma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;114:71–76 doi:10.1016/s0194-5998(96)70286-3 pmid:8570254

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Verret D,
    2. Adelson RT,
    3. Defatta RJ

    . Asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss evaluation with T2 FSE-MRI in a public hospital. Acta Otolaryngol 2006;126:705–07 doi:10.1080/00016480500504184 pmid:16803708

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Currie S,
    2. Saunders D,
    3. Macmullen-Price J, et al

    . Should we be moving to a national standardized non-gadolinium MR imaging protocol for the surveillance of vestibular schwannomas? Br J Radiol 2019;92:20180833 doi:10.1259/bjr.20180833 pmid:30633539

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Kim DH,
    2. Lee S,
    3. Hwang SH

    . Non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and monitoring of vestibular schwannomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otol Neurotol 2019;40:1126–33 doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000002416 pmid:31469788

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Buch K,
    2. Juliano A,
    3. Stankovic KM, et al

    . Noncontrast vestibular schwannoma surveillance imaging including an MR cisternographic sequence: is there a need for postcontrast imaging? J Neurosurg 2018;131:549–54 doi:10.3171/2018.3.JNS1866 pmid:30095338

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Lees KA,
    2. Tombers NM,
    3. Link MJ, et al

    . Natural history of sporadic vestibular schwannoma: a volumetric study of tumor growth. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;159:535–42 doi:10.1177/0194599818770413 pmid:29685084

    CrossRefPubMed