Table 2.
Comparison of CT and MR imaging features between OPs and IPs
| Parameter | OP (n = 17) | IP (n = 17) |
| Margin | ||
| Well- demarcated | 17 | 17 |
| Ill- demarcated | 0 | 0 |
| Shape | ||
| Lobulated | 16 | 17 |
| Irregular | 1 | 0 |
| CT attenuation | ||
| Hypodense | 0 | 0 |
| Isodense | 17 | 17 |
| Hyperdense | 0 | 0 |
| T1WI | ||
| Hypointense | 0 | 0 |
| Isointense | 5 | 17 |
| Hyperintense | 12 | 0 |
| T2WI | ||
| Hypointense | 0 | 0 |
| Isointense | 13 | 17 |
| Hyperintense | 4 | 0 |
| Enhancement | ||
| Mild | 0 | 0 |
| Moderate | 17 | 17 |
| Marked | 0 | 0 |
| TIC pattern | ||
| Type I | 0 | 0 |
| Type II | 10 | 14 |
| Type III | 0 | 0 |
| DWI | ||
| Hypointense | 1 | 1 |
| Isointense | 1 | 4 |
| Hyperintense | ||
DCE,dynamic contrast-enhanced; DWI, diffusion weighted imaging; IP, invertedpapilloma; OP, oncocytic papilloma; TIC, time intensity curve; T1WI, T1 weighted image; T2WI, T2 weighted image.
10 OPs and 14 IPs underwent DCE-MR imaging; 2 OPs and 5 IPs underwent DWI.